The trouble with computers (and Microsoft)

There is a very interesting article in The Economist about the many things that are wrong with computers today.  It's called The trouble with computers, and it starts by making some remarks about user interfaces and complex design:

Consider the Nokia 6680 mobile phone, says Adam Greenfield, an expert in computing culture at New York University [...]. He found that 13 clicks were needed to change its ringtone. “It's an interface designed by engineers for engineers,” he says. Steven Kyffin, a senior researcher at Philips, a consumer-electronics giant based in Eindhoven in the Netherlands, concedes that computer programmers and engineers, himself included, are often guilty of designing complicated systems packed with too many features. “We're compelled by complexity,” Mr Kyffin says. “There's a point where humanity just can't handle it.”

And this statement then gets right to the heart of the problem:

Part of the problem is that programmers have traditionally had more power than designers. Programmers put in place the myriad features they want; interface designers then struggle to wrap them all up in a product that is simple to use. The results, all too often, are clunky interfaces.

Now, what bugs me is how Microsoft is claiming to be on the forefront of a movement to give designers more power:

Ken Wood, deputy director of Microsoft's research laboratory in Cambridge, England, says his company is putting greater emphasis on interface design. Three years ago, he says, none of his lab's budget was earmarked for pure HCI [Human-Computer Interaction] research. Today, a quarter of the lab's budget goes on it.

They may spend money on it, but the company's products are clearly show that in most cases decision-making still doesn't sit with designers.  There are so many examples -- like the superficial bells-and-whistles changes in the new version of Excel, without any real improvements to areas that desperately need it like the graphing engine.  What I find even more troubling is how the Vista operating system is being showcased as a product that exemplifies good design:

Andrew Herbert, managing director of Microsoft's Cambridge laboratory, told attendees [of HCI 2020] that interface simplification is vital if the computing world is to be opened up to new consumers such as the elderly, children and people with little computer experience. Microsoft says new features in its Windows Vista operating system, such as 3-D graphics intended to make navigation easier, demonstrate its commitment to greater ease of use.

Um... has anyone used Vista lately?  I would love to see the research that shows that 3-D graphics make navigation easier.  The truth is that it simply doesn't -- especially not in the clunky way Vista implements it.  How would adding a 3rd dimension onto a 2-dimensional screen create an easier interface?  If you can't get the design right in 2 dimensions, a 3rd one isn't going to fix the problem.  It might look cool, but it doesn't help you much.  At least The Economist picked up on that:

But tweaking an existing window-based interface is hardly a radical step.

Discussing the future of computing, the article concludes:

Many futurists and computer experts believe that the logical conclusion of all of these new input devices, sensors and smarter software to anticipate users' needs, will be for computing to blend into the background. In this “ubiquitous computing” model, computers will no longer be things people use explicitly, any more than they “use” electricity when turning on a light or a radio. Mr Greenfield says a digital “dream world” that provides “one seamless experience of being immersed in information” hinges on one big if: computers and their interfaces must become so good that, like electricity, they rarely require concentrated attention. The trouble with computers in their current form is that they are still all too conspicuous.

I'm not sure I agree with this notion that computers should "blend into the background" so that we don't notice them.  It not only sounds creepy (ok, maybe I've see The Matrix too many times), but more importantly, I don't think this will help users accomplish their goals.  It goes against almost all of Nielsen's Usability Heuristics, especially the following three:

• Visibility of system status.  The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.
• Recognition rather than recall.  Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.
• User control and freedom. Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.

If you can't see the computer, how will you know when you made a mistake, and how will you recover from it?  We simply can't rely on computers to figure out by itself what our needs are and how the system should meet those needs.  I believe that these technological advances into 3-D spaces, ubiquitous computing and novel input devices are going to exacerbate the enormous amount of usability issues that currently exists in software and web applications.  Again, if we can't even get it right in 2 dimensions, adding another one that looks "cool" isn't going to help.  We are, indeed, "compelled by complexity."  But maybe I'm wrong.  I hope so...