UX design or the power of repetitive motions.
The post and comments below got me thinking more about how behaviour could shape values rather than vice-versa. While this notion is fairly radical in marketing where we’ve been taught from day 1 that human values change very little and very slowly; changing values or belief systems through behaviours is actually a very old idea that is established practice in many other areas.
Meditation, for example, is a process of reaching an enlightened state through repetitive behavior. Martial artists also talk about achieving a new state of awareness through the constant repetition of forms. A client of ours told a fantastic story about a woman who was suffering with an abusive husband was advised to perfume herself with myrrh. Because the scent had very holy meanings for the husband he stopped abusing her and (not surprisingly) their marriage improved.
While deep fundamental changes like the ones above take lots of time to affect, it’s probably possible to affect smaller changes over much shorter time frames. For example, being presented with an interface that has buttons reading “protect, lock, security settings, password, etc.” creates a completely different mindset than being presented with an interface that lets you, “create, share, connect, add friends, and so on” Similarly, the actions taken in either “opening up” or “closing off” to others on a daily basis must shape thinking in some way. (As a side-note I wonder if running anti-virus software makes you more suspicious?)
To me, this adds another dimension to usability. Along with the functional and aesthetic concerns of usability, we could also think of the state of mind that we are hoping to enable. More importantly, we could now also think about the larger world-view we hope to reinforce through usage of our interfaces, and we can think about the world-view that our interfaces project. Does the way our software/service work reinforce the values of our brand? I think these are very interesting questions to being asking, because they could lead to a world where there is not just one answer for how to best solve any given usability problem and where more attention is paid to the the emotional outcome of using an interface.
Dino Says:
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pmGames/play might be another area to think about in this context, specifically achieving the desired state of flow from performing simple, repetitive acts.
Flow happens as a result of doing, not so much thinking. The question of course is what values we can infer or derive from those kinds of states? Or is it even a valid question?
As an example, using mapmyrun.com for jogging makes the activity more game-like, more fun. It alters the thinking around the event. Something that Nike Plus obviously makes use of too.
Brand transformational design. Hey, where’s Leland?
FreetheChickens Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 12:27 pmAbout your side note…I think watching the local news can make one more hysterically fearful (and can induce dreadful fits of punning). I also think the “functional and aesthetic concerns” of virtual interfaces and spaces influences behaviors too. Think of Course Management Systems. Their “learning spaces” are “confined” areas that are functionally locked-down. Even Moodle, which is scores better than Blackboard in terms of flexibility and multiplicity of uses, and claims to allow users to engage in “enjoyable tinkering that often leads to insight and creativity” really just offers confined spaces in which directed activities must take place. There is no real flow as takes places in physical spaces. In a physical space, students may, in one class, sit through a 15 minute lecture, then move around into small groups, then work for a period on their own, individually. Doing so involves movement, involves reconfiguring one’s space, involves making functional changes. This movement is flow. But more than that, it involves the students tangibly making an impact on their spaces. They move their books, they change their seats. Click into different “rooms” in Moodle isn’t the same thing. There is a disconnect. Which is why I think that online learning is, right now, anyway, a paltry thing. More powerful is learning online as an adjunct to face-to-face.