As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Anyone know of a good book on
Game Interface Design (not game play mechanics; the actual UI).
I'm particular interested in theories of cognition, and how game interfaces are designed to allow the enduser efficient communication with the game (whether it in FPS, RTS, or so on).
In a modern game, the amount of information conveyed to the user,
the amount of choices the user can make; and the support for the
user to make said decisions is simply astounding (think UIs for Starcraft II / WoW).
Any insights into this would be greatly appreciated.
More a general interface design book, but great never the less.
http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Interfaces-Patterns-Effective-Interaction/dp/0596008031/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268194286&sr=8-3
Unfortunally, there are not much info on that...
What I did myself, was study regular books about interface, or user interaction.
But you need to remember something: Altough the player should not ever be "challenged" by the interface, the interface must NOT make the challenge of of the game easier.
Several Game Design books, has some chapters dedicated to interface (I know that this is too little, but is the best we have for now).
I can recommend those:
Francois Dominic Laramee, Game Design Perspectives. Charles River Media, 2002. ISBN 1584500905.
Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams, Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design. "Creating the User Experience" and each of the genre-specific chapters: New Riders, 2003. ISBN 1592730019.
Editor: Marc Saltzman, Game Design: Secrets of the Sages. "Chapter 12, The All-Important User Interface (UI) and Game Control," and "Chapter 15: Testing." 2 ed. Bradygames, USA, 2000. ISBN 1566869870
Some generic user interface books:
Wilbert O. Galitz, The Essential Guide to User Interface Design. 2 ed. Wiley 2002. ISBN 0471084646.
Doug A. Bowman, Ernst Kruijff, Joseph J. LaViola, Ivan Poupyrev. 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004. ISBN 0201758679.
Game Development Essentials: Game Interface Design: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1418016209/acmorg-20
Cool links:
David Krieger, "Designing a Good Interface."
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/491/491801p1.html
Zhan Ye. "Designing User Interfaces for Games"
http://www.ye-brothers.com/documents/gameui.pdf
Note: I did not read all those stuff completly, I used parts of them to study at university....
Hum...
I think that this is it.
I'm a video game interface designer. In my experience the best interfaces are produced by good graphic designers, its not something you can solve theoretically. CodeMasters have created some of the best interfaces for games in their Dirt series, they have / had an in house central team of graphic designers with commercial graphics experience outside of games.
I know you're looking for UI and cognitive rules you can follow but I don't think it will help you. If you're really interested the best place to learn interface design is probably Vimeo :)
Related
According to Wikipedia Human Computer Interaction involves the study, planning, and design of the interaction between people (users) and computers.
Interaction Design is the practice of:
understanding users’ needs and goals
designing tools for users to achieve those goals
envisioning all states and transitions of the system
considering limitations of the user’s environment and technology
So what is the difference between studying Master in Human Computer Interaction vs Master in Interaction Design? I think interaction design has a broader scope and includes Human computer interaction as well. which one is more practical?
Human Computer Interaction (HCI) is a subset of Interaction Design. You could be forgiven for thinking that interaction design is rebranding of HCI.
Interaction design can be placed on a continuum which begins with the earliest tools, passes through the industrial revolution and stretches out into Weiser’s utopian predictions. In the early 1900’s Frederick Taylor employed current technologies, photography, moving pictures and statistical analysis to improve work practises. Engineering psychology was born and the terms ‘human factors’, ‘ergonomics’ entered into common lexicon. The explosion of information, brought about by what Grudin (2012:5) refers to as: “technologies and practices for compressing, distributing, and organizing information bloomed…were important inventions that influenced the management of information and organizations in the early 20th century”
The earliest computers, where incredibly expensive and where only accessed by specialists, Grudin (2012:7) reports that: “ENIAC, arguably the first general-purpose computer, was…eight to ten feet high, occupied about 1800 square feet, and consumed as much energy as a small town.” While some notable researchers such as Grace Hopper where concerned with the area of ‘programmer-computer interaction’ (a phrase coined by Grace Hopper), the affordability of these massive machines and their relative scarcity would be the single biggest stumbling block the evolution of usability and theories thereof.
Ivan Sutherland’s PhD thesis “Sketchpad: A man-machine graphical communication system” was groundbreaking rethink of the interface between operators and machines. Blackwell & Rodden write in the introduction (2003: 4) that while Sutherland’s demo could only run on one modified TX-2 in laboratory, it was: “one of the first graphical user interfaces. It exploited the light-pen, predecessor of the mouse, allowing the user to point at and interact with objects displayed on the screen.”
Sutherland’s ideas had a major impact on the work on Xerox’s Star’s designers, they used his idea of ‘icons’, a ‘GUI’ (Graphic User Interface), pointer control (in their case a mouse). Johnson et al (1989:11) reports that his team:
“assumed that the target users were interested in getting their work done and not at all interested in computers. Therefore, an important design goal was to make the ‘computer’ as invisible to users as possible…Another important assumption was that Star’s users would he casual, occasional users rather than people who spent most of their time at the machine. This assumption led to the goal of having Star be easy to learn and remember.’
The Star was not a commercial success, but it’s innovations ushered in a new era of ‘personal computing’ - this led to a boon in the area of research and the emergence of Human Computer Interaction (HCI), Grudin (2012:19) reports: “As personal computing spread, experimental methods were applied to study other contexts involving discretionary use. Studies of programming gradually disappeared from HCI conferences.”
Alan Cooper, an early Interaction Design practitioner in interview with Patton (2008:16) reports:
“I began experimenting with this whole new idea that it’s not about computer operators running a batch process, but about people sitting in front of the software and interacting directly.…it was really the microcomputers that drove that into my head.”
The evolution of Interaction design, notes Cooper, was in part driven by the need to specialise, he tells Patton (2008:17):
“I found myself in kind of a bind. I was going to have to either become part of a larger organization or let go of the implementation part of what I did.”
Industry practitioners realised that this interaction between human and computers, needed to develop a methodology. Alan Cooper (2008:17) relates:
“it would be much more valuable and interesting if I could figure out some objective methodology that I was going through. That would give me some leverage, and it would be good for the world, good for the industry.”
Bill Verplank, who worked on the Xerox Star, along with Bill Moggeridge first coined the phrase ‘interaction design’ (we should probably be thankful that Verplank convinced Moggeridge not to use the term (2007:14) ‘Soft-face’). Interaction design, then named a current pressing concern for industry Cooper et al (2012:8) describe how:
“the user experience of digital products has become front page news…institutions such as Harvard Business School and Stanford have recognised the need to train the next generation of MBAs and technologists to incorporate design thinking into their business and development plans…Consumers are sending a clear message that what they want is good technology: technology that has been designed to provide a compelling and effective user experience.”
My key concern as a student of ID is that interaction Design is such a large area. Rogers et al (2013:9) list a dizzying array of areas:
“user interface design, software design, user-centered design, product design, web design, experience design, and interactive system design. Interaction design is increasingly being accepted as the umbrella term, covering all of these aspects.”
References
Papers
Patton, Jeff (2008), ‘A Conversation with Alan Cooper: The Origin of Interaction Design’
Software, IEEE Volume: 25 , Issue: 6, Page(s): 15 - 17
Johnson, J. ; Roberts, T.L. ; Verplank, W. ; Smith, D.C. ; Irby, C.H. ; Beard, M. ; Mackey, K. (1989) ‘The Xerox Star: a retrospective’
Computer Volume: 22 , Issue: 9, Page(s): 11 - 26
Grudin, J. (2012) ‘Introduction: A moving target-The evolution of human-computer interaction.’
To appear in Jacko, J., Ed., Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications, 3rd ed., Taylor and Francis.
Weiser M (1991) ‘The computer for the 21st Century’.
Scientific American 265(3):94–104, 1991
Books
Cooper A, Reimann R, Cronin D ‘About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design’
John Wiley & Sons, 12 June 2012
Rogers, Yvonne ‘HCI Theory: Classical, Modern, and Contemporary’
Morgan & Claypool Publishers, Pennsylvania State University Press 1 June 2012
Moggridge, Bill (2007): Designing Interactions. The MIT Press 2007
Web
Sutherland, I.E. (1963/2003). ‘Sketchpad, A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System. PhD Thesis at Massachusetts Institute of Technology’,
online version and editors’ introduction by A. F. Blackwell & K. Rodden. Technical Report 574. Cambridge University Computer Laboratory [http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-574.pdf]
Programming languages let their users feel terrible or smooth just like GUI designing does. When it comes with bad syntax features, users endure it with twitching fingers and eyes. And such issues already wasted a lot of time and other resources due to wars between language's fans and opponents ( ex: "goto considered harmful", "Node.js is cancer" ... ).
I wonder why UI designing at least became a researching target and own some stable standard like the distance between of user's mouse and the target component while languages didn't. I know some issues related to semantics, not only syntax. But I seriously feel these arguments should be formalized by some strong enough standards.
It seems there is a course at Cambridge entitled "Usability of Programming Languages" that addresses this exact issue.
From the 2015-16 course page:
A programming language is essentially a means of
communicating between humans and computers. Traditional computer
science research has studied the machine end of the communications
link at great length, but there is a shortage of knowledge and
research methods for understanding the human end of the link. This
course provides practical research skills necessary to make advances
in this essential field.
The same page lists the following recommended reading:
Online proceedings of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group
Cambridge guidance for human participants in technology research
Cairns, P. and Cox, A.L. (2008) Research Methods for Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press.
Hoc, J.M, Green , T.R.G, Samurcay, R and Gilmore, D.J (Eds.) (1990) Psychology of Programming. Academic Press.
Carroll, J.M. (Ed) (2003). HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science. Morgan Kaufmann.
The 2015 lecture notes seem like a good place to start: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/1415/P201/p201-lecturenotes-2015.pdf
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 1 year ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I've been thinking about the on going "revolution" in UI design and metaphors for interacting with the computer via a GUI and I'm suprised that as long as computers have been accessible through GUI's that programmers are still searching for the best way to allow the user to interact with their programs. It seems that most of the work centers around astetics(which I understand are important) but I don't understand why we are still looking for the magic bullet in UI design.
My question is: Why is UI design and components not a solved problem with accepted and understood approaches?
Probably because like most things, design (and tech, in general) are constantly changing, being worked on and revised. To say that one of the most crucial elements in software can be 'solved' would be an understatement and would be constantly changed again. There is no true definition to the 'perfect' GUI, only because you don't know who your users will be (power users versus casual, more input required vs less).
perfection is a moving target
Jacob Nielsen rightfully said about ten years ago that users don't scroll. This isn't true anymore.
Users get trained to user interfaces. Windows 7 doesn't show a system menu icon in the top left corner for many apps (e.g. in explorer), but you can still go there and invoke the system menu. Took me a while to notice the icon was missing for some apps - while using it.
(There are probably much better examples.)
The optimum isn't obvious. Consistency is core in UI, but only deviation from consistency can lead to improvements. You just can't optimize for "most consistent" or "most creative", both will fail.
it's a cross-domain skill. How many people are programmers, designers and neuroscientists? How many CS university courses teach cognitive models and how they apply to user interfaces? How many programmers pondered muscle memory, feedback loops and cognitive load?
UI's are still designed largely by programmers and sometimes fixed by designers after the fact.
effect is hard to measure
Take the Microsoft Office Ribbon: Judging from the responses, it seems to work better for many, yet is harder by orders of magnitude for others. It was a bold step, no doubt, but was it good? Microsoft does run UI tests, and they did it for the ribbons - whether they screwed up the tests, whether office politics won over facts, or wether the backslash was just wasn't forseeable in the data, I don't know. (But I'd seriously like to)
How many shops can afford user tests? Everyone can do hallway usability, but that just ensures you don't suck.
Skimming along the line
There is low pressure for the perfect UI, there is high pressure for a good enough UI. Given the lack of common knowledge and the high cost of improvement, perfect would not be affordable. The "Apple tradeoff" involves a higher price and technical shortcomings. They are pushing the limits (good!) with bold steps (very good!), which captures a notable but not major market segment. Still they are far from perfect.
I think if you ask Henry Ford the same question about designing automobiles you would have gotten an answer that would equally apply to your question today.
And that answer is, we're still in the infancy of human computer interaction design and we don't yet have enough data to design genuinely ideal systems. And, even if we did we don't yet have the ability to manufacture such an ideal system at an affordable price point.
Much like Henry Ford could not have designed the Bugatti Veryon in his day, nor could he have built it if he could design it. Or the Prius for that matter.
No, User interfaces isn't that subjective. Ergonomical matter is a scientific topic.
Think about that :
Today, everybody uses a computer. That was not the case 30 years ago.
Today , everybody uses a glass surface to access data. That was not the case 30 years ago.
Today, you've got several devices to access your data. That was not the case 30 years ago.
Today, data is collected everywhere. That was not the case 30 years ago.
Today, you can even control your data with glasses. That was not the case 30 years ago.
There is no magic bullet. just like nature, we're talking about an evolutive and living ecosystem, in the pure darwinian way.
UI design is to make people who have less knowledge about it but can easily understand the application and use it comfortable. That is core challenge of the UI design. So it evolves just like a robot. There is no end to perfect design. As along it makes the users to use easily then it is a perfect design.
User Interface is a very subjective subject, what might be ideal (graphically pleasing, efficient) for one person or task might not be ideal for another task or even another person doing the same task.
Also, the different platforms on which GUIs are implemented is ever changing and thus needing GUIs to evolve to meet specific platform demands (touch screens, ie. lend themselves towards a completely different user interface, then a mouse based platform, or even something like an ATM)
However, there are classes and books written on the subject, so there is some level of continuity in the area that has been there for quite some time.
User Interface is a very subjective subject, what might be ideal (graphically pleasing, efficient) for one person or task might not be ideal for another task or even another person doing the same task.
Also, the different platforms on which GUIs are implemented is ever changing and thus needing GUIs to evolve to meet specific platform demands (touch screens, ie. lend themselves towards a completely different user interface, than a mouse based platform, or even something like an ATM)
However, there are classes and books written on the subject, so there is some level of continuity in the area that has been there for quite some time.
In short, TECHNOLOGY.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm current a computer science student with a minor in psychology. I have the programming down when it comes to software design, but not so much the design of UI. What are some good books/websites/blogs for learning design principles for user interfaces and/or websites?
A must read: Don't Make Me Think
I'd look at A List Apart and Signals vs. Noise for good advice, but learning about design is about exposing yourself to a lot of good and bad design — look at really well designed websites (like those made by HappyCog, SimpleBits, or Airbag Industries). Look at all the people who work there, their blogs, their work, their books — be inspired but never copy.
I'd also be wary of sites dedicated exclusively to 'user experience' design or 'usability', many of the principles of design have nothing to do with user testing, studies or HCI, and focusing to much on those things can lead to development of methodologies rather than sense. I'd recommend taking a class in communication design and learning about type. Good design starts with type and hierarchy — Thinking With Type is a great introductory book. Also read about grid systems and gestalt psychology.
Good luck!
The consummate book on UI design is Don't Make Me Think. Additionally, The Design of Everyday Things is enlightening though it is not specifically about UI design.
That said, my experience with UI design has been primarily focused on web applications. I have found the work by Dan Cederholm to be the most enlightening in designing excellent user interfaces for the web. One of the most important aspects of web design is ensuring semantically correct accessible sites and Cederholm does an excellent job describing how to do that in Web Standards Solutions which was followed by the also excellent Bulletproof Web Design.
Though the CSS Zen Garden may not be explicitly about UI design it is an outstanding example of what can be accomplished visually through CSS-based design.
Finally, an often overlooked part of UI design is delivering effective error messages. While, Defensive Design for the Web emphasizes web error design much of what is described is applicable to other mediums. Those responsible for the book 37Signals maintain an excellent blog Signal vs. Noise.
Essentially all you need to know about UX and how to become part of it: http://whitneyhess.com/blog/2009/06/30/so-you-wanna-be-a-user-experience-designer-step-1-resources/
Smashing Magazine (new articles daily) covers many topics which include many good quality design articles. Usability Post also has some quality material, although it isn't updated all that frequently.
Jakob Nielsen 's Useit.com. Lot's of works there, and basically it is about the usability engineering (ie, not on aesthetic side of design), which is quite controversial to many web designers.
A List apart provides a great bunch of tips and tricks and also articles on web layout and design.
just follow SMASHINGMAGAZINE .. best on internet
One of the best ways to get better at UI design is to look around. Look at the design of web sites / applications with a critical eye.
See what you like and don't like about different elements of these sites. Over time, this will make you a much better web designer.
One more book that would be helpful is "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald.A. Norman. Though not about GUI design perse this book talks about design in general and how best some of the everyday things we are exposed to (say doors) can be better designed so that there isn't a need for explicit instructions to do obvious things that an object (say door) is supposed to do.
Designing Interfaces by Jenifer Tidwell is a good one.
The principle of beautiful web design is a great book.
A must read........
http://www.sitepoint.com/books/design1/
I really like Designing the Obvious. It has a lot of good, simple ideas and it's short enough to read in a day or two to get the feel and then reread later to let more sink in.
You'll also find some answers (including mine) at this recent Stack Overflow question.
My must-read list includes:
The Non-Designer's Design Book
The Elements of Typographic Style
Designer's Color Manual ad/or Light and Color in Nature and Art
Almost anything by Wucius Wong, particularly Principles of Form and Design
Meggs' History of Graphic Design, and/or Graphic Design History by Steven Heller
The works of Edward Tufte
Information Architecture (Rosenfeld)
Designing Interfaces (Tidwell)
Be familiar with Jakob Nielsen's work but don't let it run your life
Michael Angeles' website, urlgreyhot
Khoi Vinh's website, Subtraction
A book that a friend of mine is reading is Elements of Design: A Graphical Style Guide. I figured I'd just mention it here.
Get a copy of Designed for Use by Lukas Mathis.
Worth reading to the very end.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I spent a couple of hours to find any up-to-date figures regarding the share of software development methodologies such as Waterfall, RUP or Scrum but could not find any useful information. Is there anybody who knows about such surveys? The corresponding document does not need to be freely available, but as a matter of course I would appreciate it.
Thank you very much!
Seb
Couple of the documents I have on hand to help you on your research.
THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ON SOFTWARE QUALITY: AN EMPIRICAL CASE STUDY
Nachiappan Nagappan
Microsoft Research
Redmond, WA, USA
nachin at microsoft.com
Brendan Murphy
Microsoft Research
Cambridge, UK
bmurphy at microsoft.com
Victor R. Basili
University of Maryland
College Park, MD, USA
basili at cs.umd.edu
In Proceedings, International Conference on Software Engineering, 1999, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 85-95
Splitting the Organization and Integrating the Code:
Conway's Law Revisited
Debugging the Development Process
Managing Humans - Biting and Humorous Tales of a Software Engineering Manager
I believe you will find most software developed for business systems follows iterative development cycles with a rough methodology similar to SCRUM even though most wouldn't have realized it.
The only times you will ever see a static methodology such as Waterfall would be in most likely a large government project that requires every single technical and business design document to be completed and approved before any type of software development begins.
Since you are willing to spend money, you could turn to a professional analyst firm like Gartner Research. They generate tons of reports and you might find something in their archives. Major corporations often cite studies by Gartner.
If that does not yield any results, you should do a search in research papers. Google Scholar might help you there.
If all else fails, and you have enough time on your hands, you could perform a small study yourself: Pick random companies and tell them you are doing research and that you would like to ask them a few questions.
If such a thing existed...
There would be standards based on the results. If anywhere close to 50% of shops actually used Scrum or RUP or anything, there would be an applicable standards organization pounding out the details.
We'd all be told specifically what to do based on the results. Our lawyers and accountants would ask why we're using a methodology only used by 15% and not a methodology used by 28%. We'd have to contend with armchair generals quoting the results at us.
There would be products for sale based on the results. "Supporting the most popular methodology." "One of the most popular methodologies." "Trouble-tickets for the fastest growing methodology."
You'd see advertising that quoted the results and claiming specific quantitative benefits. "28% of organizations use our version of Scrum with improved on-time delivery."
Ever see any advertising or standards based on adoption of a methodology? Anything?
Such quantitative studies probably don't exist.
Also, a precondition for counting is definition. Can you define Scrum in a way that it's somehow different from XP? I doubt it.
I think this kind of data cannot possibly exist. It requires far more formality and standardization than are even remotely possible for something so complex as software development.
I don't think you will find reliable data on what you're looking for. I've been looking for that kind of figures for a few years and I haven't found them.
First of all, very few organisations tell you what method they are using. Some just don't use any. Some other don't know what they use, or what to call it. And some know what to call it, but won't disclose it for whatever reasons. Of the organisations that will tell you, which are (in my experience) a minority, there's a big assymetry in how they characterise what they tell you. The way in which your own question is worded illustrates this: most industry people (and many academics) today, when asked to list methodologies, think of waterfall, RUP, Scrum, XP, and a few other "trademarked" agile approaches. It is interesting, but they are perfectly capable of citing a number of agile approaches, the differences between which are usually much smaller than the differences between (almost forgotten) methods that are bunched together under "waterfall". Agile approaches are so heavily marketed and hyped that, like Coca-Cola or McDonald's, are so present in our daily lives.
Methodologies are often presented as either waterfall or agile. That is a terrible fallacy, fostered by the agile community. There are successful methodologies that do not qualify as waterfall and predate (and do not qualify as) agile. However, they seem to be ignored, and they rarely surface on surveys such as the one you demand in your question. Very rarely I find people in industry reporting to use methods such as Catalysis, OPEN/Metis or Fusion.
(Note: Don't misunderstand me; I appreciate the value and contributions of the agile movement. But I am no raving fan; I am a researcher who tries to make an objective assessment.)
In summary, I don't think you'll find a study with data that answers your question. But, in your search, I suggest you take into account these comments.
Good luck. :-)
maybe not sound helpfull, but don't give to much to buzzwords. good programmer/software engineers with an sense/instinct what needs to be done you need. most of these proceses where invented because fearfull programmer sticked to closely to one of these pradigmes and the car went against the wall and some guy rightfully pointed out what they missed. but that can happen with most strategies if you don't see you situation in which you developing as a whole.
the more recently hyped methods like XP i don't see in you list. they work well even in smaller teams. :)