| By Clinton R. Lanier,
on 03-04-2008 10:48
|
Views : 673  |
Favoured : 91 |
I want to begin a discussion of minimum functionality for maximum usability, or mf = mu. It is obvious that the simpler an item, the more usable it should be. For example, think of the simplist writing instrument you can. For my part, a crayon or piece of chalk comes to mind. Each is as simple as it can possibly get. Especially when compared to other writing instruments. The pencil for example has the drawback that the lead is buried in its body. Thus another instrument—a sharpner—is needed if the marking mechanism breaks or wears down. On the other hand, the marking mechanim of both crayon and chalk actually exists as the body of each item. Thus, as the point wears down, the marking ability continues. Both crayons and chalk also excel past other types In terms of how easy it is to make marks. Some writing instruments, such as the fountain pen, rely on specific directional movements in order to work. You cannot make intentional marks with a fountain pen by putting the point against a surface and moving it in a upward, vertical stroke because it is only designed to release ink with downward strokes. Chalk and crayon, on the other hand, can produce marks multidirectionally, and at any given angle (unlike a ball point or felt tipped pen). These writing instruments are so simple, in fact, that they are typically the first writing instruments used by children, because they do not depend on a firm and complex grip or stroke to be used. Thus, they are perhaps the most usable of writing instruments. However, crayons and chalk are light on functionality. Neither is permanent, neither is considered a “proper” writing instrument for professional contexts, neither is durable, neither can easily produce the clean look that a “fine” point is able to, neither possesses the aesthetic qualities of more expensive writing instruments. Thus, as functionality decreases, the usability of the product increases, and vice-versa. This concept is not new, and most will think it pretty intuitive. And it is, as it derives directly from two concepts common to engineering design standards. These two guidelines are: - Simplicity: the fewer the number of parts/complexity of parts, the better.
- Manufacturability: how easy is it to recreate/mass produce the design.
Now it's all well and good to talk in terms of pencils, pens and crayons, but what about more high-tech products? How may modern technology demonstrate this principle? Next we'll discuss two specific products that make use of the principle of minimum functionality for maximum usability. These two items are the iPod and Linux.
iPod The iPod is perhaps one of the most successful techno-gadgets produced in a long time. I argue here that one of the ingredients to its success is its limited functionality, which increased its usability. Think about what the ipod is at its most basic. It is simply an external hard drive that fits into your pocket. Added to this hard drive is a small user interface, barely two inches in diameter. Next add the most simple of input mechanisms: a dial (albeit a complex type of dial). Finally, an output mechanism--headphones built for one--round out the basic features of the basic functionality. And that's it. That's all the ipod is. So why is it so successful? It's so successful because the basic product is so simple that it requires a multitude of gadgets turning it into a more specified product. As a product becomes more and more customized or tailored to a specific audience, it loses mass usability: fewer people will find it usable. Thus, Apple relied on components that turned the central item into a more specialized device. As I look around my own home, the iPod plays the part of external data repository and personal entertainment device, both basic functions, but it is also a video library for both my LCD television and my portable video player. It also acts as a clock radio and music collection for my personal home stereo. In other words, the iPod is the heart of a number of other devices, all suited to particular users for different purposes. Just look at the number of audio devices the iPod integrates into. Each is just a bit different and has different capabilities and purposes. Each is bought by different people choosing the features of one device over another. But each has one thing in common: they all rely on the iPod. And with regards to its basic functions, the software for the iPod, iTunes, is similarly compartmentalized. The most basic feature is the music library. A bit more complicated is the movie and television library. More speciliazed libraries include podcasts and other functionality. But anything past the music library is aimed at a more specialized use, and thus a more specialized user. Linux The second example of a high-tech item showcasing minimum functionality for maximum usability is the Linux operating system. Granted, Linux is very powerful, and can do just about anything you can think of, but at its most basic level it is a very simple item. The Linux kernel, that is, the heart of the operating system, is the Linux I speak of. This is the Linux developed in the 1990's. It was a simple (from an operating system standpoint), central component on which others have built all the additional features. Everything that Linux can be utilized for is the result of people adding features and functions to the central kernel. One of the primary elements that makes Linux so popular is that it is almost infinately customizable. I argue that this--and a related cultural aspect--is what makes Linux so useful in developing countries. Further, as a developer, Linux gives you the ability to solve your own problems by building your own solutions. Instead of being forced to buy a component that allows you to do X with your operating system, you can simply build your own and integrate it into the kernel. So, like iPod, Linux depends on something outside of itself to increase its features, while the basic functionality increases its usability. How to Use These Lessons in Communication We can learn from these lessons to increase the usability of our own documents. In a manner, we do this already when we create single-sourced documents. A user or reader can essentially create a documentation set tailor made to his or her own liking from a raw set of information. This is perhaps the most usable type of documentation: a type that is completely individualized. As we increase the specificity of how we publish our information, we decrease the usability of that documentiaton. Notice here it is in the publishing--which for me includes the assembling--of information where usability begins to decrease. This is because the information is being squeezed into a platform. This is not unlike the iPod sold as a particular solution instead of as the basic platform. Take for example the new collaboration between Apple and Nike to create a product that allows one to be given real time information about a workout during the workout. This product set would never be used by someone other than running enthusiasts. Hence, as a solution, the product's usability declines. The same is true when information is assembled into, say, a hard copy administrator's guide. Only administrators will be able to fully use such a document, not users. But if we take the same information, and allow administrators and users to assemble it into their own, individually specific document, we've increased the usability of our basic unit (the information itself). So to increase the usability of a documentation set, try to identify ways to 1) utilize basic information in a variety of sets, and 2) create opportunities for readers to assemble their own documents out of that information. For technical, professional and business communication help in the Las Cruces, NM area, visit Lanier Infomedia. Last update: 27-03-2009 13:47
|
