Lifts or Elevators are ubiquitous. And though they might seem to be the simplest of devices to operate and use; its not funny to see the kind of lack of understanding that is prevalent with respect to the two basic buttons - Arrow up (to go up), Arrow Down (to go down) - associated with its usage. I have seen the most high-profile of people getting their basics wrong over these; some being confident enough to even educate others in their erroneous method of usage. 

Actually to think of it, it’s fairly easy to get confused if you haven’t been ‘told’ what those buttons mean. Many people tend to think that they need to “call the lift to their floor”, for which they tend to press the incorrect button. They are unaware of the fact that the buttons are meant to indicate the direction in which one wants to go, and are not related to the momentary position of the elevator in any way. Some people are so confused with the system that they just blankly press both the buttons every time, or confirm with the people inside which way the elevator is going before entering. Thus the fact is, there is a disconnect; and it’s not the user’s fault. And this confusion results in unnecessary stoppages, and people getting on lifts in the incorrect directions; thus resulting in wastage of power and time.

So I thought of ideating on some alternative methods that could help avoid such a state of confusion over these buttons. Mentioned below are some simple ideas that attempt to help people call the elevators in an intuitively more informed and efficient manner:

1. The most straightforward method to tackle this issue would be to introduce such elements that cannot cause confusion or have the least probability to do so. One such solution would be to just put the same panel that exists inside the lift - to indicate the floor to go to - outside on every floor. All the user would have to do is press the particular floor button, and the lift would stop for the purpose when travelling in the particular direction. Simple enough. And maybe the panel inside the lift could be removed altogether if such panels exist outside on every floor. But this solution mandates additional cost, and hence has it’s own limitations.

2. Probably the biggest factor behind the confusion here are the graphics themselves - the arrow indicators. They just by themselves offer vague information of their purpose. One of ideas here could be to use text on the buttons instead. For example, having text such as ‘I want to go Up’ & ‘I want to go Down’ on the buttons could reduce ambiguity as it makes the actions more personal & identifiable. This solution though straightforward, is language-dependent, and hence is not that universal in nature as the icons. 

3. A quirky way to deal with this issue could be by taking away the information that causes this confusion - the floor indicator - it is what causes people to try and bring the lift up/down to their floor. But the floor indicator has a bit more relevance, as it also gives the user an idea of the amount of time the lift will take to reach his/her floor. So, another alternative could be to replace the floor indicator with a time indicator, which tells approx. how long will the lift take to reach one’s floor. At any point of time, the timer would show the amount of time it would take the lit to reach the floor considering the no. of intermediate stops other people have called out for. As the stops increase, the time increases. The user anyways can’t do much about these scenarios even now. This particular solution would be far more informative and contextual for the waiting user, though it has it’s own set of technical requirements.

All these alternatives meet the initial goal that was set-up, and have their own set of positive characteristics as well as technical requirements. And though the current system is fairly universal the world over, it’d be nice to see an interesting alternative in place somewhere that takes care of this ambiguity (for some) and offers a more intuitive system for people to use. 

Well I haven’t designed a Wallet ever, but I do always use one, and hence have bought quite a few of them in the past. And every time I’m at the stores having a look around, I’m kind of surprised upon seeing certain widely-prevalent elements in their designs which make very little sense. They appear to be predominantly designed for people with a certain kind of a lifestyle only, which is unfair and illogical. So I thought I’ll try to think of some basic pointers which in my opinion and as per my experience should be considered while designing men’s wallets. Here we go:

1. Yes, we do use coins!

I’m quite surprised to see the no. of wallets in the market that either don’t offer any provision for storing coins or are extremely ill-equipped for the purpose. Coins do fatten up the wallet but to discourage their storage through such measures is quite ridiculous. Loose change is needed for a no. of purposes here in India and hence should definitely be considered for. A well-designed enclosure that allows a decent no. of coins to be stored along with ensuring that they are uniformly spread across the surface of the wallet (keeping it thin), rather than sagging down to one-end, would be lovely. 

2. No, the male posterior isn’t flat.

Well that’s a well-known fact. So there is no point making a flat product if it’s not going stay flat. Wallets start warping awkwardly the moment we start using them, and eventually taken on some weird shapes depending on how the items inside are place for long. How about a more complimentary form though still ensuring that items like credit/visiting cards retain their flat shape? 

3. Make it thin.

Nothing feels worse than a fat wallet, no matter what the advantage. So features that add up to that thickness like additional folds (tri-fold wallets), thick material, loop buttons etc. should be avoided in my opinion. Intelligent distribution of space within the wallet, as well as more efficient ways to store items (such as coins) can also counter unnecessary addition of bulk. 

4. Allow customization.

The kind of items and their quantities that people carry in their wallets vary; some carry a lot many credit/debit cards, some prefer to carry a lot of coins for their own practical reasons, while many like to carry a lot of cash, and so on. So other than offering different variations of wallets for all these different people, it could be a good idea to allow people to customize their wallet e.g. the wallet could comprise of large open areas which people can customize using some of the accessories that come along at the time of buying. It could be an interesting experiment to see how people react to freedom of this sort.

5. Expandable Spaces

Certain items that we carry in our wallets like coins, cash tend to undergo quite a bit of variation, from a lot to none. Thus rather than permanently allocating certain volume to them, it would be good idea to offer a detailing that allows certain areas to expand when needed e.g. use of a flexible material at the edges that allows the space to expand when stuffed with more than normal quantities.

Thus to summarize, a well-designed wallet for standard usage should adhere to the following basic functional characteristics :

* gives an impression of being capable of storing all that the customer wants to in an adequate manner, at the time of buying. 

* is comfortable and convenient to use and carry.

* allows customization as per personal needs and under certain circumstances.

* looks good even when used over time.

I have been exploring Google+ since a few months now. And inspite of some of its much talked-about features like the advanced security settings and ‘Hangout’, somehow I haven’t really felt a real inclination to go back to it. So I made an attempt to understand why would that be the case. Here are a few thoughts:

1. What’s new here?

To me, the biggest issue or disappointment with Google+ is the lack of real innovation. I just don’t see anything ‘new to do’ here. Everything that I can do here is what I can do on facebook as well - share thoughts (status message), photos, videos, links, like (+1) stuff; and the interface is just too similar as well. There doesn’t seem to be anything compelling enough to get me to shift over to this place and build a social network from scratch. In the past, people moved over from platforms like Orkut to Facebook because of some real big changes to the social experience, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. I was hoping to see some unique ways of expressing myself or reaching out to people in a way that hasn’t been done before. 

Above: Comparison of their Status Bars.

Above: Comparison of similar Posts on both platforms.

2. Is it like Facebook or is it like Twitter?

Facebook and Twitter are very distinct platforms, though they might have their commonalities. Facebook is where you become ‘friends’ - people get to know a lot about you and vice-versa. Hence somewhere there is certain amount of intimacy that comes into the picture. But Twitter is a platform where you ‘follow’ and ‘get followed’. You say something and people hear - it is more like a ‘leader and supporters’ model. You don’t necessarily need to or get to personally know the people who follow you; hence there isn’t much of intimacy.

Now, on Google+ they have attempted to merge these two - you can connect to people in a Facebook way (so that they can see your photos/statuses/likes etc.); or you can follow them, as in Twitter, wherein you just get to see what they have shared publicly. Though an interesting idea, this muddles up the overall theme of the platform in my opinion. Mixing friends and strangers on the same stage is risky as interaction with these are two are very different activities. It also greatly adds to the overall complexity of the product (explained later as well).

3. Does it make social-networking simpler?

Google+ gives you the provision to create separate groups within the people who you have connected with. It is an advantage that allows you to share stuff with only those people that you want to. Sounds simple isn’t it? But it isn’t that simple after all in my opinion. Firstly, categorizing people into buckets is a task that is extremely difficult - even if you can put each person in multiple buckets; having tried it myself. People categorize others at many levels and on the basis of different criteria, which again changes under scenarios. For example, I might have a good friend at office, with whom I share a lot of non-sensical stuff (a contradiction), but maybe I wouldn’t want to joke about the office/the people there in front of him (a rider) - so which clearly-defined bucket do I put him in? A simple way to segregate the lot is not necessarily simple.

And another very important thing to be considered is the cognitive load that such a categorization adds to the product. I believe it would add a lot of thinking on the user’s part everytime he/she adds a new contact, thinking which circle to put him into, and the act would be repeated again every time he/she shares anything (every status msg/photo/video..). Too much thinking, don’t you think? Maybe.

Above: Sample categorization of Contacts.

4. Does it map actual relationships?

When someone adds you in their circles, you never get to know in what circle has that person done so. So how would you know what kind of relationship is that person trying to build? Is he trying to be friends or just following you? What happens if I get to see someone else’s Google+ page and realize the person whom I had added as a Friend has me as an Acquaintance?

Relationships work two-ways. The intentions have to be transparent, not matter how intimate or formal. Here the intentions never becomes clear.

Above: A sample notification of addition by a contact.

5. Does the information/presentation make more sense? 

On the face of it, the interface is fairly minimalistic and clean, but there are places wherein the information presentation is confusing and can definitely be improved.

Above: Certain Terminologies hold no immediate meaning to the users.

Above: Photo Options on the left are again confusing.

Above: Google+ comments too look cluttered (e.g. too many numbers: +1 / +4 / 1share / 3comments); Facebook on the other hand, through usage of background colour and icons, has them better presented.

Based on the thoughts above, I personally feel Google will have to pull out some real tricks to bring this product to beat the well-established players, maybe by bringing in some elements from its other popular products. Though I have read some raving reviews on the web for Google+, somehow it hasn’t been able to pull me back - it’s still not a breakthrough product for me. Maybe i’ll wait and watch. 

Movie Tickets are one of those items that no one really pays a lot of attention to. They have a fairly short life span if you think about it. But that doesn’t take away their need, especially the relevance of the various details over them. They have a variety of information to present to different people under varying circumstances. These people primarily comprise of two groups only: the Customer and the Theater Staff. The relevant details to each vary at different scenarios. Let’s have a closer look at some of the key scenarios:

* Situation1: At the counter, customer buying the ticket. 

Customer:

Is it the correct Movie? - Movie Name

Am I (or the Kids) eligible? - Viewership Rating

Is it for the correct day and time? - Show Date & Time

How much do I have to Pay? - Price

Cinema Staff:

None (since details are checked on the computer before printing the ticket).

* Situation 2: Customer has bought the tickets, but not entered the Cinema as yet.

Customer:

When is my show? - Show Time (the Day/Date is usually the same or known)

Cinema Staff: 

N.A.

* Situation 3: Customer entering the Cinema, getting the ticket checked.

Customer: 

Which way is my Screen? - Screen No.

Cinema Staff:

Is it the right time for him/her to enter? - Show Date & Time

Is this person eligible for this movie? - Viewership Rating

Which way is the Screen? - Screen No.

* Situation 4: Customer entering the particular Hall, to be seated.

Customer:

Where do I sit? - Seat No.

Cinema Staff:

Is this person in the right screen? - Screen No./Movie Name

Where is he/she supposed to sit? - Seat No.

———————————————————————————————————

If we look carefully, we can arrive at certain inferences:

- Show Time, Screen No. and Seat No. are the most important details (repeatedly checked or critical).

- The Show Date, Movie Name and Viewership Rating come next (checked maybe just once or so and/or usually remembered).

- Price is of least importance among them (rarely seen once paid).

Looking at the same details from the perspective of grouping:

- Show Date & Time, as well as Screen & Seat No. should be logically placed together.

- Specifically from the Customer’s perspective: Movie Name, Viewership Rating, Show Date, Show Time and Price are important before entering the cinema, while Screen No. and Seat No. become key once inside.

———————————————————————————————————

Considering the above mentioned inputs, shown below is a sample design that in my opinion could be a better way of presenting information (Please note it represents a sample only from an Information Architecture/Layout perspective; a lot of visual exploration can further be carried out). 

A vertical and left-aligned display aids scanning and findability. Key details have been indicated using a bigger font size and made bold. There is a clear distinction between information that holds relevance for customers before and after entering the cinema. Viewership Rating has been emphasized through colour, as an alert, only when needed (adults only).

Shown below are some of the currently available tickets of cinemas that I managed to find around. Though none of the information is missing, it is fairly apparent that the required emphasis on the important details as well a relevant structure is missing here (even if we ignore the clutter around).

Multiple Homescreens are nowadays commonly found in high-end portable digital devices like the smartphones and tablets. They are considered amongst the attractive features of a device with new gadgets increasingly having more no. of screens. The new iPhone/iPad is supposed to have 11 home screens.

The rational for having multiple homepages is pretty straightforward: with increasingly sophisticated devices allowing people to install a lot many applications and games, more amount of real estate is required for the user to place the icons for regular access.

But whether multiple homescreens are the right solution for the purpose is debatable in my opinion, especially with respect to the issue of ‘Findability’. Let’s envision a scenario: If i’m using an iPhone, with 11 screens, and I suddenly feel like playing a particular game or opening a particular document saved on one of the screens, it would require me to flip through the various screens (maybe 10 swipes), scanning each one of them individually, till I find the particular icon/file. Simple enough, but not the best method always I’d say.

People do try to remember and organize stuff to help themselves out (though many don’t). Even if we assume that people have taken the pain of categorizing icons & files across the screens as per certain themes (e.g. office/multimedia/networking), it still doesn’t take away the fundamental issue with the pattern itself: lack of user’s understanding of the relative orientation of these screens. If I’m having one screen in front of me, which way do I start swiping to quickly find the item that I’m searching for? Especially if one is in a hurry, this can be quite bugging, as it makes you ‘think’ everytime. The indicator dots at the bottom don’t help much. 

If we look at the ways the issue of ‘findability’ has been addressed at other platforms, there are a no. of examples that can be pointed out:

- Location of certain important/popular items tend to be fixed e.g. On the desktop, certain key items like My Computer, My Documents etc. tend to have a fixed location, under the Start Menu or as icons on the desktop.

- On e-commerce websites, there is the option to view items in ‘Grid’ (focused on images) or ‘List’ view (focused on text/name). We also use the same variation while searching for files on our computer; grid view is helpful while looking out visually, while List/Detail view becomes relevant when the name or certain file detail is the reference.

- On email clients (gmail, yahoo), the items are listed by default as per date/time; always showing the latest ones first.

- While searching for files on the desktop; we tend to sort items as per ‘Type’ (Folders, Word, PDFs etc.) which shortens the scope/list for the user to look into.

Thus taking inspiration from these examples, there can certainly be few design alternatives that can be tried out to help the users quickly find they’re looking for on their phone/tablet without necessitating any forced methods of organization. It is important to remember that the attempt here is to help the user avoid 7-10 swipes (between multiple screens), avoid the dilemma of thinking everytime, and save time.

- Allowing the users to fix the location for certain icons (e.g. a desired portion of the screens - 1/2 rows), which doesn’t change when the screens are flipped through, and could contain the most important/popular items of the user.

- Allowing the user to switch to List view, with items across all screens listed out collectively (using a scroll). The files could be sorted as per their ‘type’ (games/applications/documents) to help shorten the search. This could be specifically beneficial when the files becomes a lot in number. Probably, rather than having multiple home screens, one could even choose to retain this as the default view. 

- Allow user to allocate names (as per their personal organization methodology) to the different home screens, and further provide short-cuts to them from the default home screen. Showing a couple of most popular icons from each screen alongside could further help in quick identification and recall.

Just a few quick ideas which probably could be worked upon considering that we’re moving towards more amount of content on our portable devices, with increasingly bigger screen sizes, and hence more complicated scenarios.

The activity of shaving forms an integral part of the daily grooming rigor for the majority of men, and it is interesting to ponder on what could be the factors that might have led to the evolution of such a commonly-used device to the current state. Considering the act of shaving and requirements, some of the factors that come to mind are:

# Effectiveness - Closeness of Shave

# Ergonomics - Handle Grip and overall Comfort for the user involved in the activity.

# Safety - Avoiding cuts to the face during the various stages of shaving.

# Accessibility and maneuverability - Razor’s ability to reach and shave across/around the jaw.

If we compare the older designs of the razors like Gillette Sensor, Sensor Excel or even disposable ones like Laser; and compare them with the latest ones like Gillette Mach3 or Fusion, the improvements on atleast 3 out of the 4 fronts are fairly apparent in my opinion: 

Effectiveness - This has predominantly been taken care of through addition of multiple blades in a single razor. The earlier ones had 1 or at the most 2 blades, while now we have the Fusion that offers 5 blades in a single unit!

Ergonomics - The new razors come with contoured handle surfaces designed to aid grip and comfort. Not that the older ones had any major issues on this front, the new razors don’t leave anything to be desired as well.

Safety - The new razors come with highly sensitive spring-loaded heads, providing greater flexibility. This allows the razor to move closely along the contours of the face and avoid any undue pressures that might cause cuts. Also if we carefully observe, as compared to the razors earlier, the head in new razors is more or less parallel to the handle; whereas earlier there used to be a major angular difference. This allows for the new razor head to move along the user’s hand, avoiding any uncomfortable hand postures in the process and thus avoiding any undue application of pressure on the face which might cause cuts. 

Accessibility and Maneuverability - This is the only area where I feel there is bit of a let down. Though with a more sensitive spring, the maneuverability of the razor head improves in a way, but the aspect of ‘accessibility’ is hampered in my opinion. The improvement in sensitivity takes away some amount of ‘control’, or the means for the user to intentionally apply pressure on the face in certain places when desired. A few examples:

# Reducing the length of sideburns while shaving. With the need to reduce a sideburn to a particular length, it requires pressure to be applied at a particular point. With a highly-sensitive pivot at the base of the head, this becomes difficult since the head starts to turn away as soon as the pressure is applied. 

# Accessing and shaving small areas such as that between the lips and nose. With the highly-sensitive pivot, extremely small strokes become difficult. This becomes even more tough as the blades gradually lose their sharpness. 

The older razors were pivoted at the centre and provided a place (just behind the head) on the handle for the user to apply pressure on the face with the blades which the new razors have taken away. 

Thus on the whole, it seems to be a case of preference to Safety over Accessibility. Not a bad call, though I’d like it if there isn’t a compromise over either. In my opinion, retaining some means for the user to manually apply pressure with the new razors could be a good idea. This wouldn’t majorly risk the factor of safety as it would predominantly not be used because of the sharp blades and spring sensitivity; but in case of certain scenarios as mentioned above, it could be optionally used when necessary and improve the overall satisfaction with the product. 

Read more …

I recently came across Nokia’s new charger that they’ve been giving along with their phones, the AC-15N, and was pleasantly surprised to notice the design change that has been incorporated into the relatively mundane product.

The charger has a 3-pin plug, of which the top pin slides in and out of the housing. Though seemingly a cosmetic change, after some amount of comparison with their previous charger, it seemed to bring in a drastic change in the overall volume and dimensions of the product. The new charger is nearly half in volume of the previous version, and lighter as well. Definitely a sensible modification, especially for the frequent traveler who always needs to carry it along.

One might ask, why not do something more drastic? I believe the reason they have been able to do this with the top pin only is because it is just meant for structural purpose, and has no electrical circuitry attached. The top pin is made of plastic, and hence cannot conduct; thus in all probability, it just ensures the other two pins are inserted in the correct holes. 

It is important to notice that the charger is generally an auxiliary product that goes free along with the phone. Covered in the packaging with no visibility, it plays no role in selling the phone. So generally the expectations aren’t much. But a feature like this will bring a smile to your face when you open the packaging of your phone and realize that someone has invested time and thought looking into your finer needs as well. The money feels well spent.

I’m not much of a traveler, but I generally wouldn’t put the previous charger in my laptop bag because of the sheer bulge and pressure it would apply. I wouldn’t mind taking this one along.

I find the process of grocery bagging at supermarkets quite interesting. Essentially, once the items have been punched for payment, a guy at the counter packs up the stuff for you to carry along, using separate poly bags for packing vegetables, toiletries, non-veg food etc. Now based on what I have observed in the supermarket, people pick up all kinds of items and dump them into the cart/basket while roaming around in the different sections. The question that arises here is, if they were fine with putting them all together in the cart, why should there be a sudden need for them to be separated post-billing? Or, why waste so many poly bags?

But the more important question here probably is that whether the customers put the stuff together in the cart because they didn’t have an option or whether they didn’t feel the need for the same. Though all the items found in supermarkets are essentially packed, there are differences in the strength, cleanliness and weight of these packages (or of the items inside). Maybe this requires them to be arranged in a particular fashion. If this indeed is a valid scenario, it definitely requires a closer look at the design of the carts/baskets at the supermarkets. The customers should be able to make the arrangement and separate the items right at the time of picking them up, a task that the current cart/basket designs don’t seem to be catering much towards, atleast not in India. With varied eating habits and food-related concerns like separation of veg and non-veg food, special consideration to sacred or festive foods/items etc., this could be a interesting project from an Indian perspective. A better understanding of the mental model of the customers and their needs is obviously needed and that should define the direction for the redesign. 

Definitely seems like a scenario where user-centered design can make a difference. If not, we can atleast save on a lot of plastic.

I recently came across the website of www.expedia.co.in and was pretty surprised to realize that their interface for flight selection is exactly the same as www.cleartrip.com, a site I’ve used a lot in the past and consider in good regard because of the design sensibilities exhibited. Shown below is the flow from the homepage to the flight selection page for Expedia and Cleartrip.

As you can see, Expedia is using the same interface as that for Cleartrip with some minor tweaking in the pricing as part of their deals. Maybe the two companies have struck a deal, as part of which Expedia is using Cleartrip’s interface (being older). Though I couldn’t find any news for a tie-up, it is very unlikely for Expedia to have ripped the other’s design. 

I have been an admirer of Cleartrip’s simple, clean and intelligent interface; the primary reason of being a loyal follower of the site till date inspite of some other competitors offering better deals, because of the reliability and clarity its design radiated. But upon finding the same interface at Expedia, I felt this angry rush of disappointment and shock. It was like finding another company selling their product using a design created by Apple, the deal approved by Apple itself. I felt as if Cleartrip had led itself down, by sharing their USP with someone else. To look at things in perspective, for me, now Cleartrip wasn’t the only place to go for booking a flight, as there was another place that offered the same novelty, and maybe offered a better financial deal around as well. I’m not sure of the reasons that led Cleartrip to lend its interface; but by allowing their design to be templatized, they just diluted their worth. Though still a great site, it is one amongst many now.