Communications - April 2011

software for a specific organization, so Apple’s use of experts for mass market software is a new twist.

The second is that people at Apple think really long and hard about problems. From that perspective, certain solutions will pop out as being obviously better ways of doing things. Thus, part of Apple’s strategy is to guide people toward that way of thinking as well. If you see problems the same way that Apple does, then the structure and organization of an interface will make sense.

The third is that Apple tends to design by principle rather than from data. In HCI classes, we emphasize making design decisions based on evidence as much as possible, for example, from past user studies on previous iterations of the interface or from ethnographic field studies. In contrast, at Apple, more weight is given to design decisions made from first principles.

So, what does this all mean?

I have two closing thoughts. First, should we just throw away existing HCI methods for design? Given the sharp contrast between traditional methods in HCI and the methods used at Apple, and given the success of Apple’s products, do HCI methods actually matter?

One of my colleagues has a good counterargument, which is that Apple’s products aren’t always the first in an area. The iPod wasn’t the first MP3 player, iTunes wasn’t the first online music store, and the iPhone wasn’t the first smartphone. As such, Apple can learn from the mistakes of others, apply the skills of subject matter experts, and hone existing designs in a proven market. However, for new kinds of hardware or applications that there isn’t a lot of precedence for, this style of “think really long and hard” won’t be as effective in pinpointing user needs and developing products in new markets.

Second, how much prominence should be given to design within organizations? What is the right mix of design, engineering, and business needs? For example, the so-called “death grip” for iPhones, where holding the phone the wrong way leads to a drop in signal strength, is clearly an engineering problem rather than an interaction design problem. A better mix of design and engineering may have caught the problem long before production and shipping.

Furthermore, it’s actually not clear if Apple’s approach to design is optimal or even replicable. Apple’s approach relies heavily on people at the top of the organization consistently coming up with great ideas and great designs. However, we’ve also seen a tremendous amount of innovation with reasonably good interfaces coming out of Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other high-tech companies. Perhaps there are ways of helping organizations be more user-centric without having to radically restructure their company, a topic I’ll explore in my next blog post.

Comments

Did you talk to these people and ask them, Why do you think Apple no longer shows up at the annual HCI conference SIGCHI runs? Do you think Apple believes standard HCI practices are not really useful? Why aren’t they part of the conversation at these conferences?

—Ed Chi

Jason hong responds

Apple hasn’t had a strong research presence since Apple’s Advanced Technology Group (ATP) was closed in 1997 by Steve Jobs. Given the style of products Apple has been pursuing, as well as their success (bigger market cap than Microsoft now!), it’s hard to say it was a bad decision for Apple, though it was clearly bad for the research community.

My impression as to why Apple isn’t part of the conversation is because it’s not the style of their work. There are still many organizations where industrial design is seen as the only form of design.

It’s also not part of their DNA. Steve Jobs is well known for being ultra-secre-tive, and this outlook just doesn’t mesh well with the open sharing in research.

In terms of valuing HCI methods,
again I think it’s just not part of their
culture. Given their successes too, it
would be hard to say they need to do
something different. However, I think
the key point was what I mentioned in
the blog entry—Apple’s recent line of
products have been more about per-
fecting existing products and address-
ing well-known needs. I don’t think
this is a bad thing, but it may suggest
some new insights as to when and how
we should be applying HCI methods vs.
other approaches.

Comments

Have you seen Alain Breillatt’s article where he documents Apple’s development process based on a talk from a senior engineering manager at Apple?

“You Can’t Innovate Like Apple”
http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/
publications/magazine/6/4/you_cant_
innovate_like_apple
Basically, Apple bets the company every
time it does a new product, and takes high
risks to change the market each time. Most
other companies wouldn’t risk failure to do
these things.

Also, some relevant commentary from Bruce Tognazzini on the differences at Apple: http://asktog.com/ columns/ 082iPad&Mac.html Jason: If Apple can be successful without using more traditional HCI methods, then it is high time that we take a look at ourselves, and think about the true impact of HCI design and evaluation methodologies. Supposedly, they do no market research, and implies they hardly ever talk to real users during the design process. That means, I guess, there is very little participatory design or iterative refinement. Blasphemy! Ha ha!