Sign up to get our featured articles delivered straight to your inbox every month or two.
RSS feed of all articles
Follow us on Twitter
Architecture (3)
Automotive (2)
Books (9)
Branding (3)
Business (25)
Communicating design (9)
Cooper (9)
Critiques (15)
Design & engineering (14)
Design disciplines (1)
Design in organizations (20)
Design principles (15)
Events (4)
Experience (6)
Features (80)
Financial (1)
Industrial design (4)
Information design (6)
Innovation (21)
Interaction design (27)
Interaction Patterns (3)
Medical (3)
Methods (2)
Mobile (7)
Personas (12)
Platforms & technology (2)
Product definition (6)
Requirements (3)
Research (16)
Service design (5)
Strategy (6)
Sustainability (9)
Techniques (29)
Travel (3)
Trends (9)
TV (4)
Typography (4)
Visual design (17)
Web (11)
Platforms & technology
Crappy interface embarrasses Sulu on national television—not cool
Wanna Bet is a new show on ABC wherein celebrities bet on whether “ordinary” people can accomplish extraordinary things. Whichever celebrity has the most money at the end of the program gets to donate it to the charity of his or her choice. The way it works is that the show introduces the ordinary person, describes the (usually very odd) action this person is going to attempt, and the celebrities write down their prediction and bet amount. The attempt is made, the person succeeds or fails, and then the celebrities reveal their bets to much fanfare.
So far so good, right? The trouble is that there is some kind of disconnect in the betting process. On the first episode George Takei (better known as Sulu from Star Trek) excitedly revealed that he had guessed correctly and had bet $20,000. The show’s hosts, however, informed him he had only bet $2,000. For anyone not employed as a designer of interactive systems, it looked like George Takei was having a senior moment. It was embarrassing. The other celebrities on the show spent the rest of the episode pretending to have flubbed their bets to make up for it.
So where’s the failure here? George Takei is getting on in years; maybe he’s just not very comfortable with technology. Leaving off a zero is an easy mistake, right? Maybe, except that in the very next episode of the show, the same thing happened to comedian Melissa Peterman who thought she bet $5,000 but “really” bet $6,000. She’s only 37 and sharp as a whip. The show is now two for two, and I would argue there is a failure in the system.
Slanty (and underhanded) Design
I’ve been entranced with the notion of Slanty Design ever since I read Russell Beale’s article about it in Communications of the ACM in 2007. For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, Slanty Design is kind of anti-affordance, a difficulty-of-use employed to achieve certain design decisions. I think even the acknowledgment of such tools mark a maturity of interaction design: it’s not solely about making things easy to use. (Just, perhaps, mostly?) Unfortunately, the use of slanty design isn’t always to encourage better behavior. Sometimes it’s just greed.