Desirability and usability as a design team

According to John Soellner’s article “Design, Usability, Desirability, What’s The Difference?” desirability design is “about expanding on the idea of what human factors are” in order to better understand what drives users to employ interfaces based on their interest level and personal satisfaction.  It can be functional and emotional.  Functional desirability is almost interchangeable with usability in that it means users desire to use a site because it is usable and well organized.  Emotional desirability, although related to the subjective satisfaction which is a part of usability, breaks away from usability because it seeks to understand a user’s emotional reaction to the aesthetics of a user interface: the look, feel, and even the content.  Emotional desirability concerns itself with the intangibles and emotional human factors that Soellner refers to above.

Desirability works well in tandem with usability because it measures the intangible aspects of user experience such as fun and enjoyment, aspects that usability itself usually cannot address.  Desirability helps designers discern whether or not their user interface design is enticing enough for users to want to employ, reaching beyond whether or not it is easy and functional enough for users to want to use.  “Desirability design techniques supply the X Factor which motivates users to make usability matter” says Soellner.

One of the major problems that social networking sites have come up against relative to their interface designs is that of privacy and security. The Facebook hegemon recently took a brutal hit when users began complaining en masse that the security feartures user interface design was not only ambiguous, but also deceiving. If Google is developing a social networking website of their own, it would behoove them to make privacy and security the vanguard of their user interface design. In a cutthroat world, preying on the weaknesses of your competitors is often a good strategy, and Google can continue to assert their internet dominance by designing their site to be the antithesis to Facebook’s equivocal and complex privacy user interface. While many have criticized Google for not being able to crack the social networking egg, their late entrance to the party may just allow them to become the belle of the ball.

Both ways of user interface customization can be successful, but if you are thinking about implementing modification options, the personalization method is the lowest risk tactic in terms of complexity.  This approach does not require users to perform the customization act itself. That means that the site is easier to use because users have less to think about.  The less users have to think and the easier the site is to use, the more successful it will tend to be.  Although the personalization strategy provides lower risk in terms of ease of use, it does not mean the actual interface design will be easier to construct. It just means that it will require less effort on the part of the user.

Conversely, the customization method requires more effort on the part of the user.  This can be advantageous if enough users find this a beneficial feature and change their use or buying decisions based on it. Yet, if that is not the case, your effort will have been wasted, and, what is worse, the additional complexity may have adverse effects on user adoption, which is why this is a higher risk strategy.

Ultimately it is up to you whether or not you want to incorporate customization setting into your interface design.  Factors that need to be considered is the projected rate of use (the value you create) and the impact on usability of the user interface design through additional customization options (the usability barriers you may create) when deciding whether or how much effort you can risk to invest in customization. If you think the personal settings you have created will be popular and usable then take the risk of giving the user full autonomy to customize the interface design.  Otherwise, play it safe and let your system be in control.

Integrative interface designs: Apple’s iPad model

Apple recently introduced its new iPad and proved that they understand how important integration is to simplicity and usability. The iPad functions like a combination of the OS system and the iPod. Apple was smart in realizing that two of its more popular programs could be a force to be reckoned with if they were combined. Combining the features of the iPod and OS operating system’s interface designs increases simplicity because the user is able to consolidate all his „Apple needs“ into one place. Apple’s new iPad shows that integrating extant interface designs not only vamps up usability through simplicity, but it also a produces a lucrative marketing strategy to promote a profitable product.

Simplicity works

Successful interface design relies on usability, and usability often relies on simplicity. If you want to create the most usable and therefore profitable interface design possible, keep in mind that simplicity often works. Gooogle and Apple understand that, and look where it has gotten them.