A few weeks ago Microsoft released a video showcasing their idea of what the future of technology might look like. Some weeks later, Bret Victor wrote a rant about how unimaginative Microsoft’s vision is. The thrust of his argument is that the ubiquitous touchscreens depicted in the video are uninventive because it disregards the most fundamental and powerful tool known to man: our hands. He explains that the physical interfaces of today don’t take advantage of our hands’ ability to both feel and manipulate things.

All this talk about hands and feeling and manipulation got me thinking. Given the current state and inertia of technology, it should be our foremost goal to make our interfaces feel good.

Feeling is often the indescribable property that separates a good interface from a great one. It’s the gap between the pixels and your finger (or mouse, by extension). You hear people mention this all the time when talking about software; “I don’t know, it just feels good”. Of course they’re not actually talking about how it feels, they’re talking about how their brain perceives it would feel if it were a physical interface. They’re talking about how well it responds to their input.

Without tactile feedback, as is the case when using a touchscreen or navigating a mouse cursor around a screen, our brain can’t depend on our hands and instead relies on our eyes to proxy visual feedback. We use this information on a subconsious level to confirm our last action and plan our next one. How an interface feels is the fidelity of the visual feedback to how our brain predicts it should feel.

It’s easy to see how important visual feedback becomes to the user experience in the absense of tactile feedback. It explains why skeuomorphism has prevailed as a common user interface design approach: it’s comforting to us as users when what we see and feel in the virtual world matches our perception of the physical world. This is why buttons often look like buttons and calendars often looks like calendars.

But how an interface feels goes deeper than the pixels on the screen; it’s all about trust. As an interface designer, you enter a contract with your users. Your design implicitly guarantees the user: “When you click X, the software will do Y”. It’s the job of your interface to back this guarantee by providing the feedback necessary for the user to feel assured you kept your end of the bargain. The gap between what your UI promised and what was delivered is received by the user as negative feeling. We’ve all experienced it, that brief moment of cognitive dissonance when you beckon the software to do one thing and it appears to do something different, or worse, nothing. That’s broken trust.

I have long preached that every clickable element (links, buttons, etc) deserves at least three states: idle, hover and click. I also encourage additional states for active-hover and active-click, but they are less necessary. Even novice designers know to make the idle state of their links obvious, but it’s surprising how many neglect to provide the user proper hover and click states. The hover state signifies that the element is clickable at this moment and the click state confirms that the element was clicked, both of which are crucial to keeping up your end of the UI contract.

The very best user interfaces are those that have a two-way conversation with the user, with equal transmission amplitude from both parties. When the visual feedback provided by your interface falls short of what the user expected, you’ve subconsciously broken their trust and left them with an indescribable feeling of doubt.

The following is the result of an email conversation from our team here at Imulus. We thought we’d post our differing opinions.

Taylor Smith
Chimero on Designers Learning to Code http://blog.frankchimero.com/post/9594863189
And on a related note, here’s a nice site to learn JavaScript: http://www.codecademy.com/

Scott Hooten
I don’t see a place to comment on his site, but I totally disagree. Maybe I am challenged in that part of my brain, but working on code consumed so much of my time that I had very little time left to think about and further my design skills. I don’t think his point about print design skills is valid, because what I learned about printing 20 years ago is pretty much the same.

Bruce Clark
I’ve come around on this to an extent. When first starting at Imulus I felt designers needed to code. Looking at it now, I think along the lines of what Malcom Gladwell talked about in Outliers. Basically that to be an expert in something it takes a fuck-ton of practice. To be a great designer you need to spend a lot of time designing. To be a great developer you need to spend a lot of time developing.

Can you do both? Sure.
Will you be as good at one or the other compared to doing one full time? No.

A designer needs to know the constraints of the interface they are designing for (and only to a point, as design should push boundaries). In some instances knowing the constraints can be taught by learning how to code, in others it just means having a ton of experience designing for that interface.

I will say, a lot of firms don’t look at design like Imulus. They expect designers that can code. I don’t know if this is good for them, but it’s what they expect. The truth is a designer that can code probably does have better luck getting hired in the industry.

Bryce Hammond
I’ve only met two designers who could write great code, and who had great design. One was swiped back by 37Signals and the other is still one of the creative director’s at Wall Street that started the mobile app team with me. On the whole great designers don’t code and great coders don’t design well (I think their are some crossbreeds in the front end developers, especially at Imulus . I’m personally hopeless without a designer. The world needs to be saved from engineer designed interfaces.

Scott Hooten
Going back to the print design analogy. I don’t need to know how to run the press to know that I can’t print an 8 color design on a 6 color press. It’s important to understand your medium, but you don’t need to be an expert on all the inner workings to design for it. 

On another note, I still think a day will come when great websites can be built without writing any code. I’ve designed a ton of stuff in Postscript, but never written a single line of Postscript. It’s been rendered by printers and image setters and platemakers from a lot of manufacturers. Obviously the web is more complex because it is interactive and variable, where print documents are static, but it’s hard for me to believe that as the web matures that it won’t be possible.

Taylor Smith
I think I disagree. I don’t think designers need to learn how to program, but I think there’s a huge value in learning how to write HTML and CSS, even if it’s rudimentary. I don’t think I can think of a single high profile web designer who doesn’t know how to code. Sure, maybe they’re not experts at it, but I think having an intimate knowledge of the medium makes their work that much better.

Looking at using something like CSS3 media queries to create responsive designs – I think it took the creativity of a designer to figure out how they could be used the way they are now, and apply it to a site’s design. My guess is that the first wave of developers who took a stab at creating responsive sites this way were also designers.

As for building sites without code, I disagree unless there’s a huge shift. Casey and I have been discussing this lately. Looking at Google+ source code, they’ve clearly come up with a system for building sites where the benefits of the build process outweighs the loss of semantic HTML. That’s kind of fucking awesome, but the standardistas probably hate it. I can see this becoming standard practice eventually, though. If Google, et al is smart enough to figure out your sites content, then who gives a fuck if your code is semantic. And with JavaScript taking off like crazy, who gives a fuck if your site even has markup? See: https://twitter.com/#!/jashkenas/status/108343261906735105

I do, however, believe a better application for designing sites will eventually come to fruition, built upon webkit, just as JSM predicted: http://v4.jasonsantamaria.com/articles/a-real-web-design-application/

I think an app like that would be a huge improvement for designers. It would get them out of the fixed width world and give them the opportunity to design buttons with multiple states, and all that fun stuff. But even if it could save out HTML/CSS, I still don’t think it will give you the level of detail and precision that we pride ourselves on building.

Casey O’Hara
To Scott’s point: I can also imagine the day tools have evolved to a point where websites can be built without writing any code.

Taylor and I have been tossing this idea around a lot lately, specifically about how important the core web stack (HTML/CSS/JS) will be moving forward. The markup behind Google Plus is an indication that they’ve developed a tool that generates most of it for them. Also, Joe Hewitt (inventor of Firebug, iOS dev at Facebook) and Jeremy Ashkenas (inventor of CoffeeScript, Backbone, Underscore and a ton of other stuff) have been talking recently about the concept of “empty body tags” — where basically all markup is generated. Seems to be working for them.

HTML and CSS are coming off a huge movement for standards and semantics. This was great because it got a lot of designers and developers in the right mindset and got the browser vendors to catch up and lead the way forward. Perhaps we’re reaching the point where these technologies just don’t matter anymore.

That said, web programming isn’t going away. It doesn’t matter how much the tools evolve. Even today it’s possible to create a “good” website without writing a line of code (think Dreamweaver), but a “great” website or complex web application? Forget it.

We have robots that can build cars, but Ferrari still builds every engine by hand.

Scott Hooten
I agree that web programming is not going away. I just wonder in 15 years with increased bandwidth and much faster computers and mobile devices how much of the web could be created with an app rather than writing code. I would say right now you can get an econo box out of Dreamweaver without messing with code. In 15 years maybe you can get a Toyota Camry. The Ferraris are still going to be built by hand.

Casey O’Hara
One thing I’d like to add is that since being at Imulus I’ve grown to really appreciate and rely on the expertise of the designers as true specialists. As a developer, I see a huge benefit in being able to treat a design as a build spec. In the same way that you wouldn’t want your architect swinging a hammer.

Agreeing with Bruce, the distinction between designers, developers and programmers is what makes Imulus special.

Let me start by saying that I am a long time Apple user. I’ve been using Macs since 1988 and have owned a variety of Macs over the years including a Power Computing clone from the dark days when Steve Jobs was not with the company. It is those dark days that give me reason to worry.

What Apple lost without Steve was his intense attention to detail and perfectionism. Steve was willing to make the hard choices and delay or even cancel products in development if they weren’t up to his standards. Whereas other companies commonly ship substandard and flawed products to meet schedules and revenue goals, Steve understands that doing so only serves to damage the brand.

My worry about Apple in a post Steve era is will they be willing to make those hard decisions? Who at the company will be as focused on the details and have a clear vision of where Apple is going and how the product fits into that vision. Has Steve been able to build a culture at Apple that has all employees look at the products they create with as intense a critical eye and with little regard for what the public, stockholders, and fellow employees think?

It is my sincere hope that Steve has been able to build his values into the Apple culture enough to maintain their current level of success. I also hope that Steve is able to regain his health and live a long life doing what he loves with Apple or in some new endeavor. I hope that Apple will continue to give us one more thing.

Recently it seems that there is a change in the interface design coming out of the Googleplex. First I noticed the new bar at the top when logged into Google. It had some slight shadowing and a certain level of detail that was unusual for Google. Then last week the bar went black, which while simple is a pretty bold statement for Google.

Traditionally, Goggle has followed a very strict philosophy of form follows function. If any design element would slow down the page it was eliminated. This resulted in a distinct style that was certainly embraced by a very technical audience, but I personally found it lacking. While I agree that form should follow function, form can enhance function. Subtle shadows or gradients can denote that an element such as a button is functional. Simple icons can communicate quickly.

In comparison to my desktop apps, I have always found Google apps to be clunky looking and not enjoyable to use. They just don’t feel polished or sophisticated. As Google tries to compete with desktop software I wonder if they are finally realizing that this design philosophy may be a liability as they try to expand their market beyond the more technical early adopters. As they attempt to challenge Facebook and Microsoft they are facing an audience used to a certain level of sophistication in the design of their apps. I think this is partly behind this recent change in philosophy. The new Google+ interface by Andy Hertzfeld of Apple fame is the most dramatic change, and I think a sign of things to come. Who knows, maybe I would actually enjoy using Google Calendars if the interface was more enjoyable to look at.

Note: I do not in anyway fancy myself the supreme expert of Design. Nor do I think anyone is or ever can be. Design is a living, breathing entity that will forever evolve, push limits, and astound. This blog is simply some exercises that can help broaden your horizons even if it’s the slightest bit. Also keep in mind, they are in no particular order. That being said, on to the list!

1. Do online tutorials.
The dreaded vacuum. As designers, we avoid it like the plague (or should). We strive to break out of our own design shells constantly, but what about our Photoshop shells? Photoshop is such a unique and complex tool, sometimes when we learn how to do something one way, we stick with it. Even if it’s not the most efficient way. Try doing something strange and off the wall – like setting someone on fire. You might learn something new about photoshop and/or a more efficient way to do something.

2. Use a design style from one of the greats.
Sometimes it’s not enough just to look at inspiring pieces from the great graphic designers throughout history; sometimes you need to scoop it up and play with it. Try designing in a style that is opposite of your own. If your design is clean and precise, try designing a piece inspired by Stefan Sagmeister or David Carson. If you love wild and crazy design, try designing something inspired by Josef Muller-Brockmann or Yusaku Kamekura. Obviously, I don’t mean recreating the works. Use some elements and the general style to make something new and unique. It will challenge you and force you to think differently.

3. Use colors you rarely use.
Look at old designs. Do you have a tendency to use blues and grays? Design a piece that is only oranges and yellows. Go to Kuler and find a crazy color palate and stick with it. Splash around in the color wheel and don’t be afraid to go crazy. Sometimes you’ll discover use of color you were afraid to use before.

4. Design upside-down.
I am constantly guilty of this: I start a homepage design and I whip up a heading and navigation that I love. I gain momentum and pretty soon I’m almost done with the design. Oh yeah, I need to design the footer. Well, everything else looks great, so I’ll just throw in a bar of color with text links and call it done. Who scrolls all the way down to the bottom anyway? What? What am I thinking? My design should have love and attention from top to bottom. That’s what makes a truly inspired design. A way to combat this is design upside-down, top to bottom (and no, I don’t mean stand on your head – but I won’t stop you if you want to try). Not only will you give extra attention to things you sometimes forget about, you’ll also approach a design in a very unique way.

5. Steal a fellow designer’s PSD
No, I don’t mean literally. Ask a fellow designer if you can borrow an old PSD of one of their designs. Only use the elements in their design and create something new(don’t add anything, don’t change colors, don’t change fonts, etc). Blow elements up, shrink elements down, do whatever you can to make it different and interesting. By limiting yourself, and using design elements you’re less familiar with, you force yourself to learn new things and see things differently.

There you have it. Obviously some of these exercises are not always going to work for client work, but try to put aside time to design just for the fun of it. Be your own client and always try and push your own limits.