Summary:
Alan Cooper wrote The Inmates are Running the Asylum for the sole purpose of exposing software programmers and their corporations to the lack of attention they pay to design. Cooper frequently uses the term "interaction design" to mean a design that is easy for users to understand and use to the point that they will choose a product because of it. This is a fundamental choice that programmers must make before designing products instead of simply tacking on an interface to try and mask their confusing code. The problem is that programmers can understand what they make (after all, they made it) and therefore cannot see how customers would have an issue understanding it as well. Cooper points out that people in the software industry think more like computers than humans, and therefore have detached themselves from users who aren't experts in the field of computers.
Alan Cooper wrote The Inmates are Running the Asylum for the sole purpose of exposing software programmers and their corporations to the lack of attention they pay to design. Cooper frequently uses the term "interaction design" to mean a design that is easy for users to understand and use to the point that they will choose a product because of it. This is a fundamental choice that programmers must make before designing products instead of simply tacking on an interface to try and mask their confusing code. The problem is that programmers can understand what they make (after all, they made it) and therefore cannot see how customers would have an issue understanding it as well. Cooper points out that people in the software industry think more like computers than humans, and therefore have detached themselves from users who aren't experts in the field of computers.
Cooper breaks these users into two categories: Survivors and Apologists. Survivors are those people who cannot stand software because they cannot understand software. They frequently feel stupid and embarrassed by their inability to get products to work the way that they need them to, and will silently stick it out because they don't think there is a better way available. On the other hand, Apologists think that software is the bee's knees. Cooper (rightfully so) compares them to hardcore political party advocates, who will declare their party the ultimate good and ignore any and every evil. They are loyal not to good products, but to products in general. Therefore, they work hard to master difficult programs because they feel it is their right and privilege to do so. Like Survivors, they cannot imagine a better way to interact with software because they have developed a digital case of Stockholm Syndrome.
Cooper gives many examples showing that failing to put user needs and experience as the top priority has killed products and companies. At the end of Chapter 6, he states that engineering methods cannot solve the problem because they are the problem. Homo logicus creates a coding masterpiece, yet Homo sapiens cannot use it. Without designing for humans, humans will never enjoy their masterpiece.
Discussion:
Seeing as how I'm already done with the first half of the book, it's obvious that I found it really interesting. Cooper's writing style meshes well with his ideas of interaction design, and before you know it you're thirty pages in. What surprises me most about this book so far is the fact that most of the companies and products he mentions are things that I have never even heard of. This is a true testament to the power of his statements. These dead companies piled on features instead of refining design, and suffered for it. In my opinion, the lack of user-centered design helped lead to the burst of the tech bubble, with so many promising companies collapsing in on themselves. Apologists built them up, but in the end the companies had nothing to offer the real consumers who needed new technology without knowing it. So far, a great book.
Discussion:
Seeing as how I'm already done with the first half of the book, it's obvious that I found it really interesting. Cooper's writing style meshes well with his ideas of interaction design, and before you know it you're thirty pages in. What surprises me most about this book so far is the fact that most of the companies and products he mentions are things that I have never even heard of. This is a true testament to the power of his statements. These dead companies piled on features instead of refining design, and suffered for it. In my opinion, the lack of user-centered design helped lead to the burst of the tech bubble, with so many promising companies collapsing in on themselves. Apologists built them up, but in the end the companies had nothing to offer the real consumers who needed new technology without knowing it. So far, a great book.
I liked his writing style better too, not as whiny. I've only heard of a few of the companies he listed, like Oracle and Novell, because they're massive. Like Microsoft, they're the only ones that can take a substantial hit and keep on going. What else is interesting is that when that tech bubble popped, it dealt a bigger blow than he realized. Dr. Yurrtas mentioned one day that the dot-com collapse caused a huge drop in CS majors, and we're still recovering from it. Hopefully we will gain some insight from the book and not pop another bubble.
ReplyDelete