We think we use a product. In fact, we experience a system.
The relationship we establish with a product, with the product It starts when we meet. The form gives the first clues about its function. When we take it in our hands, its weight, balance and material confirm or disrupt this expectation. The movement of a mechanism, the resistance of a cover, the reaction of a button, or the feedback it gives when a part falls into place, tells us how the product will behave.
We may not have fulfilled its original function yet. But the experience has already begun.
Today User Experience — UX — mostly screens; We consider user flows, menus and micro interactions. This connotation is understandable. But UX is not a design problem that starts with the screen. The screen is only one of the interfaces between the user and the system.
ISO 9241-210 (human-system interaction) standard, user experience “Perceptions and reactions of a person from the use or expected use of a system, product or service” defines it. These perceptions and reactions cover the pre-use, the moment of use and the post-use.
Don Norman, at the UX conference in San Francisco, says that this term is ‘terribly misused’ today. The issue is not just how an interface looks or works. The issue is the whole of the relationship that man establishes with the designed system.
And this relationship extends far beyond the screen.
Don Norman: The Term “UX”
How does the product communicate?
We said that the experience started before the product was used. What is interesting in terms of design is that this does not happen by chance. The geometry of a product, its surfaces, movements and physical feedback not only inform the user about how it looks, but also how to behave and how to interact with it.
In the design literature, this relationship afffortance and signifier explained with the concepts. afffortance, the possibilities of action that an object offers to the user; signifier It describes the clues that determine how these possibilities will be perceived.
Therefore, a well-constructed physical interface does not have to explain every interaction separately. The grip area can direct the position of the hand, a geometric orientation makes the axis of movement feel the axis of movement, a mechanical resistance feels the limit of motion. The user does not analyze them one by one; It transforms design decisions into behavior.
The product thus begins to talk to the user; But it does this not through words, but through geometry, material, sensation, movement, force and feedback.
And how accurate this communication is, raises a different question from whether the product is technically working or not: If the function is working, is the product working?
A product may technically perform its task perfectly, it may look very aesthetic and still not well designed. In terms of industrial design, it is not only whether the user can complete the task, but also how natural, understandable and low cognitive load It is necessary to look at what he has done.
Let’s consider a coffee machine. It prepares coffee at the right temperature, at the right pressure and in the desired time. It fulfills its duty in terms of technical specifications. But what if it is necessary to pull the device forward at the counter each time in order to fill the water reservoir? What if the hopper hits the upper cabinet while removing it? If the parts that need to be accessed for cleaning can only be disassembled in a certain order?
The function of the product is still working, it can prepare a nice coffee. But with the product Actual usage context (Context of use)) There is a problem between
This is where the user experience is critical to design. The user is not in an idealized scenario for a product; He uses it in a certain place, in physical constraints, sometimes with one hand, sometimes in a hurry, sometimes with gloves, sometimes doing another job. So the right question is only “Does the product fulfill its duty?” NOT. The question “How does this task take place in real terms of use?” is also part of the design problem. And this question sometimes changes the basic decisions much more than the form.
Ergonomics, anthropometry, human factors (Human Factors), mechanical editing, material selection, production method and product architecture are parts of the same interaction system. One decision is not independent of another.. usability; It is about how understandable, predictable and low cognitive load can be accessed rather than the existence of the function.
Physical and digital: the vehicle changes, the principle does not change
Physical and digital products use different design tools; However, the basic interaction problems that need to be solved for the user are largely the same.
In a physical product, geometry makes you sense where a piece will be grasped or in which direction it will move; In a digital interface, visual hierarchy and interaction elements undertake a similar redirect task. The click that a mechanism gives when it clicks into place informs the user that the process has been completed; The status change of a control on the screen also responds to the same need for feedback. Similarly, with the fact that a part can only be assembled in the right direction, disabling an invalid digital option is based on the same design approach: Not leaving the possibility of error only to the user, constructing the system in a way that supports the right behavior.
Therefore, changing is not the basic principle of interaction; This is the tool to which we pass this principle to the user.
In the physical product, this tool can be geometry, motion, force, sound, texture or mechanical feedback. In the digital product, visual hierarchy, situations, navigation and interaction feedback come into play.
In both cases, the question that the design should answer is the same:
“Can the user understand what he can do, direct the right action and read the result of his actions?”
From this point of view, the screen is only one of the interfaces between the user and the system.
Whether physical or digital, a well-constructed interaction allows the user to understand the system, predict the outcome of the action, and move forward without unnecessary mental or physical effort.
However, another misleading situation arises here: Does the fact that we can use a product without difficulty means that that product has been well designed from the beginning? Not always.
· · · · · ·
Do not confuse usability with habits.. Habit is always good availability (disobedience) is not an indication.
We often do not notice problematic interactions in everyday life; Because we adapt to them. Over time, we learn to pull a jammed part at a certain angle, the technique of a difficult opening cover, or the location of an incorrectly positioned control. The user may no longer complain. This does not mean that the problem has disappeared; It can only mean that the user has learned to compensate for the problem in the design.
Good design does not demand unnecessary adaptation from the user.
A well-constructed product does the opposite. Instead of waiting for the user to adapt to the product, it shapes the product behavior around human natural movements, perceptual expectations and usage habits.
A well-constructed interaction becomes invisible over time. Instead of thinking about how to use the product, the user focuses on the work he wants to do. The success of the design sometimes occurs not in a feature it adds, but in a pause that it eliminates.
There are many decisions that are not visible behind a visible product.
What we see when a product emerges is mostly the result: form, material, details, interface and mechanical solution. However, much more is considered in the design process than it seems.
Who will use the product?
Where and in what environment will it be used?
With gloves? One hand? Is it standing? In the dark? In a narrow volume?
Is it under high stress?
Every day or several times a year?
How will it be moved, installed, cleaned, stored or maintained?
At what point does the user hesitate? How does a technical constraint affect the use experience?
What design decisions does the production method, service need or component placement change?
.
These questions are not independent of each other. User research, usage scenarios, ergonomics, human factors, product-user interaction, mechanical requirements and manufacturability are different layers of the same product development system.
For this reason, we do not consider the industrial design and product development process only as form development at Witus. We evaluate design decisions in conjunction with the actual use context, technical requirements and manufacturability. Because a good product should not only look good, but also work correctly in the system in which it will exist.
In the background of this approach is a nonlinear thinking process: observing, identifying the problem, questioning assumptions, developing alternatives, prototyping, testing, and reconsidering design decisions as they learn. Today we talk about this most of the time under the title of Design Thinking. The most critical moment of design is not the moment we start to produce solutions; It is the moment when we understand correctly what we need to solve.
Raw material of the design: OBSERVATION
It is not possible to construct the real use of a product only by thinking, reading and researching. Because the scenario we design does not always coincide with the product that the product encounters in real life. People grasp, carry, position products in unexpected ways; It skips some steps, uses some functions for different purposes and develops their own solutions for the problems they face.
It is these deviations that are valuable in terms of design.
It is necessary to observe where people grasp a product, where they pause when using a machine, and which small methods they unknowingly develop to speed up a process. Because users do not always use the products in the way that the designer predicts.
Field observation, contextual inquiry, task analysis, and user research therefore do not only produce research output; It directly feeds design decisions. Sometimes it causes a small geometric change, sometimes the displacement of the control element, and sometimes the reconstruction of the product architecture. The most important part of the design takes place before you start designing the solution: To be able to read the world in which the product will exist correctly and to collect the raw material of the design.
BEYOND DIGITAL
It is easy to reduce the user experience to screens. However, the underlying design problem of UX is much older and much wider than screens.
‘Good design starts with assumptions, tested by prototypes, tested with the user, thriving with iterations, and paying off in real terms of use. The user experience spreads throughout this process. Because -ux- is not a single stage of the design process, it is part of the whole.’