ISE 2012: Top 10 Intriguing Products
Super Bowl: The Ultimate Home Theater System
Inside Former New York Giant Amani Toomer's Home Theater
Neat-O: Wired for Prime Time Makeover
Print
Email
Comments (6)
Share
4 Keys to a Successful Interface Design
In the world of high-end systems integration, touchpanel control devices are the standard. One of the biggest advantages they offer is customization. You can design the interface anyway you want.
Unfortunately, with this freedom comes the ability to make the interface nearly impossible to understand … or use. So, each design and layout requires some serious thought.
Touchpanel interface design is a very broad topic. So, focusing on the key requirements of a good design is a good place to start.
Interfaces should be intuitive, efficient, consistent and tailored to their primary users. Indeed, while there is technically no right or wrong way to design a touchpanel interface, you will find that nearly every aspect of an effective and easy-to-use touchpanel directly contributes to one or more of those four objectives.
Keep them in mind as the interface is constructed, and they will undoubtedly have a positive effect on the final product.
Intuitive Operation
The word “intuitive” is widely used in the field of systems integration in reference to user interfaces. It is more or less agreed upon that any “good” interface is also “intuitive” to operate. While this is true for the most part, it is important to differentiate between what is intuitive and what is simply familiar.
There are numerous interface design elements that are considered intuitive solely because they are so common. Everyone knows how to use them because everyone is familiar with them. Some of these standards, such as the telephone style layout for a numeric keypad, are very widely accepted and should generally be incorporated.
Some controls, however, are worth experimenting with (transport buttons, for example) in order to develop new and better configurations.
Quite often, that which is familiar can get in the way of that which might come naturally.
Objects should be easily distinguishable from other types of objects on the page. A text field or digital readout, for example, should have a different appearance than an object with which the user interacts, such as a button or slider.
The Apple iPod provides a good example. The iPod’s scroll wheel is a wonderfully efficient way to scan through a large list of information. It could be considered quite intuitive to slide a finger forward or backward, at varying speeds, in order to control displayed information.
Even so, many users didn’t realize how to operate the iPod at first because they had never encountered this kind of touch-sensitive control. Nevertheless, Apple showed people a new way of interacting with a device and, in turn, redefined the “intuitive” standard.
While most systems integrators don’t have the influence over the masses that a company like Apple can have, they can still decide which standards and norms they are going to accept and which ones they will do their own way.
Efficiency
In the realm of touchpanel interface design, efficiency usually refers to the number of button presses required to complete a specific task. As a general rule, no action should take more than two presses to perform.
For example, if the user wants to watch television, it might take one press to select between “audio” and “video” menus and a second press to select “WATCH TV.” Moreover, once the user is watching TV, he should always be just one or two presses away from selecting a different source or turning the system off.
Though violations can sometimes occur (especially when switching between control of A/V sources and environmental controls), the two-presses rule is, generally, pretty easy to follow.
Let’s say the user is watching a DVD, and he wants to adjust the lighting. This operation should be as simple as one press to jump to a lighting control page and a second press to return to the DVD controls after adjusting the lighting.
Subscribe to the CE Pro Newsletter
Read more Business Resources stories
People On the Move: Revolabs, Linear LLC, CrestronRoom Acoustics: What Installers Need to Know
What P&L Statements Show About Job Profitability
13 Ways to Improve a Service Department
Lutron Announces Dates for Residential Opportunities Tour
More in Business Resources
About the Author
6 Comments (displayed in order by date/time)
CE Pro—
It is a sad state of affairs when you try to teach interface design via a magazine article.
While an interesting idea, you have to consider the platform that some in the home automation biz are saddled. It is no wonder that the iPhone makes every home automation panel (that means you Crestron, AMX and Control4) look like stooges from the stone ages.
An interface is built upon the hardware and operating system. When you start with crummy hardware and 1980-style operating systems, it is hard to build an intuitive interface. Clearly, some developers do better than others given the limits, but still the state of the art in the home automation realm stinks compared with what is running on today’s home computer and smart phones.
Let’s agree that the sooner Crestron and AMX go the way of the horse and buggy, the better off for home automation customers.
—JTD
Great article, Aaron, and thanks to CEPro for publishing…
Unlike another reader, I came away from that article with a handful of invaluable concepts and considerations to keep in mind when approaching touch panel projects. Not sure how it could be taken as an attempt to “teach interface design”, as anyone actually familiar with the products and the slightest inkling of what is involved with designing an interface for their users would realize that you couldn’t achieve that task in two pages…
Since this article was about the user interface, I’ll leave the questionable-at-best slams against the hardware and operating systems as a discussion for another place and time. Suffice it to say, if a client has the money to spend, they can get any kind of interface they want for their control system, and they’d be hard pressed to find manufacturers with a hardware platform to implement and support the control functionality that - when all is said and done - is better than Crestron or AMX’s. (And if Microsoft’s Project Natal technology is ever made available as a spun-off peripheral, I believe it’s a pretty safe bet we’ll be able to do “Minority Report” style interfaces with both of those vendor’s systems)
- Chip
So i guess Databoss likes to use his iphone as a remote control…
With iphone:
Slide to unlock…
Select app…
Select room…
Select source…
Select play…
Finally!
With Crestron:
Press Blu-ray Button… DONE!
I would probably have just as hard a time trying to use my touchpanel as a telephone. BTW.. apple can claim the rights to the ‘main menu’ user interface all they want but FYI.. we have been doing it for a decade.
I can’t wait for the day when I can go to my local AT&T;store for an iPhone, StarBucks and home automation. Maybe I can get that new Krups interface (what will StarBusks say?).There will always be a need for proprietary solutions, just as markets comoditize, they will also seek an upper limit. Thank You ADA, AMX, Control 4, Crestron, Elan, Home Logic, and all others who continue to drive the markets which do not comoditize my expertise and career.
Thanks for a well thought out and useful article on a topic that is critically important to client satisfaction and often the weakest link in the chain.
I certainly agree that programmers should participate in UI design, though ultimately I think the design should be owned by neither programmer, sales person nor project manager. Ideally, I think the requirements, specs and acceptance testing for the UI should be the responsibility of a separate role squarely charged with ensuring that the system delivered meets the functional and operational requirements of the customer.
In conventional software development, this role is often called “product manager.” Without having a specially trained and qualified person playing this role separate and apart from project management and programming, the likelihood of delivering a system that isn’t sufficiently intuitive, efficient, consistent, etc. is just too great. (In small shops, one person can play multiple roles - i.e. the project manager can also be the product manager - so long as this person is properly trained and qualified.)
Great article. It’s nice to hear a professional explain the process. I feel like im cheating on a test when i come across articles like this
.