Continuing the theme of the Pause button moving beyond media players such as this LG washing machine, here is a Pause button in the shower.
Notice how Pause is paired with Power instead of Play.
Via Gizmodo.
83694 items (0 unread) in 212 feeds
*welcome ;)
Idealist > a platform for sharing ideas, concepts and designs
Show your stuff!!
Continuing the theme of the Pause button moving beyond media players such as this LG washing machine, here is a Pause button in the shower.
Notice how Pause is paired with Power instead of Play.
Via Gizmodo.
Following up from my post on the LodgeNet game controller with the bizarro ABXY labeling, here is a history of the ABXY controller layout, from ABXY.org.
From the article:
For the origins of the ABXY button scheme we must look back to the very beginning of additional buttons. When the Famicom (known as the Nintendo Entertainment System outside Japan) launched, it featured two primary buttons. While other companies labelled their (usually two) buttons with numbering such as 1 and 2 or I and II, Nintendo had instead used A and B. When the SNES was released in Japan in 1990 they added X and Y to the mix, and rotated it slightly. The format was now a diamond, with X, A, B, and Y all around, clockwise. This format became known as ABXY because of the obvious alphabetical order.
But why X and Y? Why not C and D, the next most logical letters? The likely reason for this is future-proofing. Adding C and Z to the right of ABXY would not change the way games designed only for ABXY controlled, whereas if the controller had ABCD adding E and F and moving C up beside B would affect previous games, and having the buttons in ABECDF order would not make sense.
When Sony launched their now-standalone PlayStation in 1995 for US$299, it had its own take on the diamond: instead of letters it had symbols–a Circle, Cross, Square, and Triangle, respectively. They also added two additional triggers, introducing the typical ten-button scheme of many controllers.
Can a button help save you money? Of course.
Just ten bucks at Uncommon Goods.
Another fun example of keyboard keys jumping the shark.
(Via Gretchen via PopGagdet.)
ATMs are handy, magic slot machines where you are always a winner. Push the buttons and the wall gives you money. Even so, they do not need to be your friend. The biggest culprit is WaMu. Can somebody please tell Washington Mutual to tone it back a bit and de-friendly their ATMs?
One of the basic tenets in interaction design is clear communication. Products should use wording that doesn’t make us stop to ask, what? And that means adopting a tone appropriate to the interaction.
For the last ten years or so, I’ve been complaining about Washington Mutual’s ATMs. They adopt a tone that’s overly friendly, so friendly that it complicates the relatively simple interaction of getting cash from the wall.
For example…
“Hi, how can I help you? Should we talk in…” We begin straight away in conversation mode. Ok, I get it. Washington Mutual’s brand is built on being friendly. A little over the top, but let’s see what happens.
“Please give me your secret code.” Saying “secret code” instead of PIN is an admirable way of trying to change the language of banking from archaic terms like PIN to something a little more everyday.
But whoa! “Please give me your secret code” sounds like the ATM itself is going to mug me. Now that’s efficient. The machine giveth and the machine taketh away.
“Sure” and “No Thanks”. This is what has bugged me for a long time. I’ve used Washington Mutual ATMs probably over a hundred times over the years, and yet I still hesitate at “sure” and “no thanks” even though I know it’s coming. Maybe I hesitate because I’ve trained myself to hesitate.
“Sure” is a term for casual conversation, but it’s interesting how really out of place it feels here. “No thanks” is a term of politeness, but does it occur to us to be polite to an ATM? Is this why this feels strange?
We expect interactions with technology to be more utilitarian. Yes. No. Cancel. Exit. Enter. Continue. Washington Mutual tried here to break this mold, but taking it too far makes it almost worse.
What do you think?
The audio and PDF from my talk on Learning Interaction Design From Everyday Objects is now up live on the Adaptive Path site. Check it out.
But even better, I’ve created a slidecast of the talk, hosted on SlideShare. Pretty easy actually to sync the the audio and slides together. Sweet little synching application at SlideShare.
Let me know what you think of the talk. I’d like to hone it and present it again in the future. Enjoy.
How easy is it to overthink a design solution? Quite easy. Slow down and think it through. Just remember ABXY.
As we’ve covered before with alarm clocks, technology found in hotel rooms is often poorly designed, likely purchased from the cheapest possible source. They buy cheap, they get cheap.
For example, here is a game controller designed by LodgeNet, a company trying to keep you inside your hotel room, tethered to the entertainment system, when you should really be outside exploring the new city.
Notice the cluster of four buttons on the right-hand side. They are labeled A B X Y. But which button is which? Is the Y button on the top or on the left? Is the A button on the bottom or on the right?
What I find most impressive here is that the labels are almost perfectly centered between the buttons. This is not an accident. An actual person out there (I apologize if you are reading this) made a conscious decision to center those labels. They probably thought, wow, this will look better. Sure enough, it’s pretty. Pretty hard to figure out!
Labels are one of the easiest things to mess up. Poor choices of words. Misplaced, or just missing. Heck, look at the orange button. It’s both Reset and Order. Reset is a button of Noncommitment, Forget It, Go Back. Order is a button of Commitment, Do It, Go Forward. They have opposite characters, yet they are doubled up on the same schizophrenic button.
I know somebody out there is thinking, there is a light blue pair and a dark blue pair. X and Y must go together, as must A and B. Therefore the light blue pair is X and Y and therefore the Y button is on the left. Well done! You solved the code.
But anytime someone has to think through and deduce an interface, that interface has failed. More accurately, the designer has failed by forgetting that someone is supposed to use this thing.
Every little design decision we make adds up. In every product we make, there are probably hundreds of little areas that can potentially cause confusion and hesitation. The lesson here is, slow down. Notice the little things. Think it through.
* DesignCorner is part of blinrk:media * DesignCorner thanks the blog owners that share their contents * DesignCorner is a playground * DesignCorner is growing * DesignCorner ♥ design * DesignCorner is happy to see you here. * DesignCorner works on the iphone ;)
subscribe to DesignCorner 
