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!
Jason hong is an associate professor of computer
science at carnegie Mellon university.
© 2011 acM 0001-0782/11/04 $10.00