I draw boxesA blog on user experience & design

July 24, 2008

The user experience of a toilet on South West Trains

Whitney Hess’s recent post about the user experience of a staircase reminded me that user experience design is everywhere and affects us everyday. Don Norman’s seminal work The design of everyday things analyses the design of many objects, such as telephones and doors. I came across this terrible design recently and had to share it here.

There’s not a lot you ask for when using a toilet. A reasonably quiet, clean & private space will usually do – of course with a functioning lavatory.

We’ve all used the loo – or ‘restroom’ a million times, so you’d think it was not a difficult thing for designers to get right. They’ve had enough practice over the years.

Toilet door

Bog standard: a normal toilet door complete with lock, coat hook and roll

The user’s goals are quite simple: relieve myself in private, quickly and cleanly. We need a cubicle with a lockable door, preferably with a coat hook. The lock should ideally be some kind of obvious knob or handle that provides visual and/or tactile feedback to confirm it is successfully locked. The user can always pull or push the door a little to confirm that the door will not open.

There are rarely instructional signs or notices in a restroom – it’s obvious from the design of the elements along with our own experiences how to achieve our goals. The Please wash your hands reminder provides a different, ‘reminder’ function and is not instructional as such.

We’ve all used the restroom a million times, so you’d think it was not a difficult thing for designers to get right

A visual indicator on the outside of the door is a nice touch – it provides reassurance for the user that they will not have others pushing on the door; and it gives anyone sizing up the cubicle considering whether to try the door a clear indicator that the door is locked. A red/green indicator is common.

The key point is that privacy is a massive issue here. There should be no possibility of an embarrassing situation involving a user literally caught with their trousers down. It is unthinkable, particularly in the workplace but everywhere.

Toilet cubicle

Topographic view of a standard toilet cubicle

The standard toilet cubicle, such as the one shown here, has worked for centuries and is intuitive to use.

The toilets on South West Trains

So why, then, have the UK’s South West Trains got it so wrong? Their trains are otherwise great. They seem clean, fast, efficient and comfortable.

The toilets are an attempt to use a ‘high-tech’ system to operate the toilet. There is a large, rounded sliding door which is operated by buttons positioned on the outside and inside of the cubicle, as shown below:

South west trains toilet diagram

The design of a toilet on South West Trains

The buttons to enter the cubicle work ok. You have a set of Open and Close buttons, which are in the same style as the ones used to open the main train doors when boarding.

So you hit open, the door slides open, and you go inside. You have to look around for the close button because it is not immediately obvious where it is – it’s positioned opposite you as you enter, quite low down. The three buttons in a row are shown here.

Once you have located the close button the door slides shut, and the Lock button flashes slowly to indicate it needs to be pressed in order to lock the door. But this is far too subtle, and not intuitve. Consequently, it is very likely that the user will assume the door is locked and proceed with their business. Once the Lock button is pressed, the light stays solidly lit, as shown in the photo.

Buttons on South West Trains toilet

3 buttons for operating the toilet door

The key point is this: the feedback mechanism of the light on the lock button is not sufficient to communicate to the user that the door is locked or unlocked. By trying to emulate the door mechanism for the main train doors on the toilet doors the designers have made the toilets very difficult and unintuitive to use.

The net result is that it is very likely that embarrassing situations will occur. This is not the fault of the user but the designer.

I would question the need for a Lock button at all – as a user, when are you going to want to go in to a toilet cubicle and not lock the door? The designers should just make the door lock automatically – as the user might reasonably assume it has from the flashing light on the Lock button.

This is an example of very unfortunate bad design – not quite the Chernobyl incident cited in Norman’s The design of everyday things, but nonetheless a bad design that I bet has lead to hundreds or thousands of uncomfortable situations for users.

Update: I found Anders Ramsay’s article on New York City public toilet design. There’s also an OK/Cancel article on the usability of urinals.

July 9, 2008

Structuring my presence on the web

Since I started I draw boxes I’ve realised that I’d like to have more on my website than just information architecture resources. Which leads me to wonder what the best way to structure my site is.

I’ve started to think about resurrecting my old site that died about a year ago

It’s great having an IA blog – it works for me because I like having a place to write very specifically about my work. Blogging is quite a personal thing and if you’re not motivated to write, then the blog dies. I am mostly motivated to write about IA, but occasionally would like to write about other things I enjoy, such as personal geeky projects, music festivals or nights out with friends.

So I’ve started to think about resurrecting Sainsbury.org – my old site that died about a year ago following a server crash. I’ve had a portfolio website since 1999 when I started my degree course, and it might be good to start Sainsbury.org again in a new format, to compliment I draw boxes.

Do I integrate the two sites or have 2 separate ‘sister’ sites?

In the past I’ve always just had one site, and I started I draw boxes because I’ve made the decision to specialise in IA and want a site that represents that. But I’m now beginning to wonder whether this is the right decision. Maybe I should bring I draw boxes into Sainsbury.org as a site section? That way I just have one site, but with a couple of different audiences.

So the question is, do I integrate I draw boxes into Sainsbury.org or, instead, have 2 separate ‘sister’ sites?

I’ve summarised the options in the following diagram (click the image for a larger version):

Diagram showing structure of I draw boxes and Sainsbury.org

Although I like the neatness of the 1 site option – it gives me a single place on the web and a consistent look and feel – I also like having all my IA stuff in one place. I don’t want my friends reading about information architecture or IA people reading about my latest night out. Well, I don’t mind if they do, I just want it to be a concious choice by them rather than accidentally stumbling across inappropriate content. And that, in essence, is the main argument for keeping the two separate.

I don’t want my friends reading about information architecture or IA people reading about my latest night out

The downside with the 2 sites option is that the user will occasionally be transported to the other site – the portfolio section is particularly problematic. This bothers me because transporting the user to another site (i.e. URL, navigation, look-and-feel) can be disorientating, particularly if they’re not expecting it.

The thing is that my interests do not necessarily fit into neat site sections or categories. My professional life is not just limited to information architecture. I enjoy and have experience of loads of other aspects of making web sites too. Also I’m lucky enough to do a job I enjoy, so business and personal interstst often overlap as well.

I’ve tried to represent all this in the following Venn diagram, annotated with example content from each sphere of interest. Click the image for a larger version.

Venn diagram representing my interests

The 1 site solution mentioned above essentially groups everything within the information architecture sphere on the I draw boxes site, and everything else on Sainsbury.org, which could work. Although I draw boxes could include all the professional sphere – which is what I need to decide.

Audiences

Another factor I’ve not yet considered is target audiences. They can be summarised as follows:

  • Information architecture/user experience professionals
  • Web designers and developers
  • Employers/potential employers
  • Colleagues
  • University students (I was at uni for 8 years as both a student and a teaching assistant)
  • Friends

The top 5 (all except for ‘Friends’) are really the target audience for I draw boxes. Which makes me wonder if I even need a second site. Do I even care about a site for friends when I have Facebook?.

Maybe the answer is to beef-up I draw boxes with a bit of additional non-IA content and use Facebook for everything friend-related.

Conclusion

For now I’m going to continue building I draw boxes, and see how it develops. I need to get my full portfolio of work up online soon, and whether I add that to the IA portfolio on I draw boxes or set it up on Sainsbury.org remains to be seen.

I’m definitely leaning towards the 2 site solution shown in the diagram above, I just need to give some thought to ways of cross-linking (clear signposting etc.), and also to designing the look-and-feel so the user still feels they are within my site, even though there are 2 sites with different URLs.

Update 16th July

It seems this essay has a lot to do with my own grapplings with personal knowledge management, which is being discussed by a few bloggers around the place. In particular Gene Smith in Personal information architecture and Peter Merholz in The Tension between the Personal and the Public.

Although this issues are slightly different (flickr and del.ico.us rather than personal web sites) the underlying problem is the same. The tension between personal and public is something that I have not fully resolved in my own online presence.

July 7, 2008

Should IAs be involved thoughout the web development process?

A fundamental question for me relating to the information architect role is how we fit in to and interact with the wider web team, and to what extent IAs should be involved throughout the web process.

Information architecture is in many ways the ‘bridge’ between technology and design

My own opinion is that information architecture is in many ways the ‘bridge’ between technology and design – while keeping the user in mind. Therefore IAs should have input at every stage of the project.

Another view is that IA is simply another step in a linear process – a process that goes something like: Strategy > Requirements > IA > Visual design > Build > Test > Release. In this model the IA simply drops in at the beginning of the project, produces some documents, and then disappears as soon as the wireframes are handed over to the design team.

If an IA is doing his or her job well they will make sure they are at the centre of the project

I have worked on projects where both ways of working have been the norm. I think if an IA is doing his or her job well they will make sure they are at the centre of the project. But to do this takes a certain amount of confidence. We have to prove our worth within a team, and this often takes time.

The plain fact is that many web teams have been producing pretty good websites without information architects for many years, and will continue to do so unless we show we can add value.

But information architects are being hired. They seem to be in great demand to me – although there are relatively few roles in total (compared to say, designers) there are even fewer practitioners. So there are people who see value in our role. It’s more about shaping that role once we’re in the door and proving value in our interactions with all members of the team.

When faced with project managers or art directors who believe the ‘thanks for the wireframes, bye-bye’ approach, I think all we can do is try and offer insightful opinion when appropriate and mention that we’d like to be involved throughout the process.

I still believe fundamentally in the integrity of information architecture as a unique role

I still believe fundamentally in the integrity of information architecture as a unique role. We have skills that cross the traditional creative/technical boundaries, and while we are not specialists in these areas we can offer a degree of planning, consideration and communication that produces genuine savings in time and increase in quality of outcome.

This note would not be complete without mentioning Jesse James Garrett’s 9 pillars of successful web teams. His beautifully simple diagram and accompanying essay show information architecture (labelled as ‘abstract design’) as the central ‘pillar’ of a web team, touching every role within the team and providing links between strategy and tactics, and design and technology. Garrett is an IA himself, so he is naturally inclined to argue that IAs are central to any web project – but I agree, and it’s what initially attracted me to the role.

So if team members don’t initially see the value I (as an IA) can add to a project, then I see it as my responsibility to prove my worth to the extent that they seek out my opinion on key issues – and in the end produce a better product as a result. This may take time, but it’s about evolving the notion of a web team and making our own small contributions to the progression and acceptance of our role.

Powered by WordPress