Designing for Inaccuracy?
Written by Russ on November 26, 2009 – 11:54 pmI know it might come across as crazy, but I think there’s something to be said about designing for inaccuracy. And, of course, someone else has already probably thought of this and there’s a fancy (or simple) name for it. That’s okay; it’s on my mind and I’d like to rattle it out.
The Back Story
The day before Thanksgiving, the family was all loaded-up into the (sigh) minivan and as I started backing out of the driveway, my wife punched the magical button on the GPS that would get the trip routing started.
We both looked at the estimated time of arrival and took deep sighs, knowing that we were in for a long trip with a 20 month old and a 6 year old in the back. This isn’t the type of trip we look forward to as everyone gets restless.
Fast forward a few hours. My wife and I both look at the GPS unit again, and we both kind of sigh out loud. We both started to talk about the same thing at the same time–this damn GPS is accurate.
Accuracy is Good!
Absolutely. However, in my Trailblazer’s GPS, it’s frequently (translation: always) not accurate. So, after driving for a little while, the estimated time of arrival / length of time left to drive shifts enough to feel like we’re “making good time”. In fact, I could argue that every time I (allegedly) (unknowingly) take some liberties with the speed limit, I feel as if I’ve accomplished something when the time shifts to my favor.
Who’s Fault is This?
At first, I wanted to blame Microsoft.
Why not, right? Everyone likes to blame Microsoft.
We’ve all seen that Windows file download / transfer dialog box that starts out telling you that you’ve got 18 years, 4 months and 12 hours remaining that quickly jumps to 45 minutes and then continues to shift as something magical happens to the various connections to your machine.
It’s annoying.
But, if I’m being honest, my Mac does the same damn thing. The various flavors of Linux I’ve used have done it, too.
So, it’s the fault of those who create operating systems?
Or, it’s the fault of those who simply create mathematic formulas. I think.
I’m not sure it matters, really. It’s just that Garmin does one hell of a job in getting it right.
And that’s frustrating.
So What?
Exactly! So what does this have to do with anything?
Part of what’s been interesting to me about this is that I’ve been frustrated at not being able to beat the clock, or beat the game and arrive ahead of schedule. I looked forward to beating the clock and arriving “ahead of time”.
Look, it’s my quirk, but I highly doubt I’m alone here. We all like to win, even the little subtle victories like not stopping for restroom breaks so you can beat someone else’s best time.
Psychologically, each of us wants to win. We want to beat the machine. We want to be better and smarter than “that damn device in the dash”. We want to beat the computer at chess.
It’s how we’re wired. Survival of the fittest? Kick the ass of SkyNet? All the above?
I don’t know, just yet. I’m still pondering this, and I know it’s not new–the “winning” aspect is part of building engaging design. We don’t want to dumb something down so much that it turns away our audience; instead, we want to provide them with enough stuff to figure out and learn along the way that they’re feeling successful and intelligent as they move through. Perhaps this is part of what Stephen Anderson calls “Designing for Seductive Interactions”.
Perhaps it’s slightly different. I don’t know yet, and like I said, I’m sure it’s already out there, so I welcome some direction and feedback here from the smart folks that you are.
Thanks!
Posted in User Experience, User Experience Design | 5 Comments »
Russ,
Beating the clock. When I used to drive back & forth between Detroit and Pennsylvania before the days of GPS, I used to keep my mind active by constantly calculated ETA to the Minute based on distance and current rate of travel. And the “beating the clock” goal was always top of mind.
I completely understand where you’re coming from, but I can’t help but think that directly designing for inaccuracy is just wrong. We shouldn’t be creating systems that present inaccurate information just because we can’t find a better way of presenting it to the user. I think you’ve got something with the “winning” aspect. It’s about designing by using incentives and rewards. There’s no reason why the GPS can’t remain accurate and still make you feel like you’re making good time. And if you beat the time it predicts, well then you’re really on fire! Or what if you come up with a completely different way to get there? Bonus points!
@Joshua
I think you’re right–still rattling it through, but it seems like designing for inaccuracy isn’t the approach, but it’s the designing while presenting a way to feel like we’re winning, beating or even just somehow competing (or just some sort of “fun” goal in the mix) that can make the difference.
Thanks for that feedback; just the kind of kick I was looking for.
The easiest way to beat the clock is to turn it off. As most GPSs constantly adjusts the ETA, you cannot win. In fact, my Nokia GPS keeps telling me “Mind the speed limit” if I go too fast.
As to the Microsoft timing structure, I think this is more a “cover-your-ass” kind of solution than an accurate representation of the time needed. I suspect that Microsoft hopes you’ll have a happy surprise when the download goes faster than originally estimated. So this might be a UX thing, not a true metric.
Interesting point about trying to be too specific or accurate. Designing without limitations can be incredibly frustrating, as can the opposite of designing so incredibly specific that when you get done you have something too rigid. Too rigid tends to equate to short life span and obsolete these days.
A challenge of getting specific/accurate is the loss in flexibility. And trying to “win” in a rigid structure often leads to negative outcomes as much as positives – bad decisions, poor judgement, speeding tickets, family members that hold it over your head forever. Or may in fact be the necessary focus thats needed to win, in which case its more of a question of how long can you win for?.
Maybe a change in thought process to the platform or framework level is what you’re getting at in the article? Maybe a poor example but Apple didn’t set out to create the perfect App, but they provided a platform/framework for which others could get really specific. The apps have the short life span, not the platform.
Platforms/frameworks demand a balance between accuracy and inaccuracy. Its tough to overcome the mental leap because there is an element of ambiguity that remains with being even slightly inaccurate. And as you correctly point out, we’re wired to win.