Comment: Arrogant Interfaces are Bad Design

Usability is not just a matter of how you present things to the user, but what functions you choose to offer - or force on - users. The worst offence is design that takes an I-know-better-than-you-do-so-here-it-is-and-just-live-with-it attitude toward users, what has been duly dubbed as "arrogant programming". The release of Service Pack 3 for Office XP demonstrates that arrogant user interfaces are alive and well, ready to leap up and stop users in their tracks.

In its never-ending struggle to fix programming problems and block the assaults of malware, Microsoft releases a steady stream of "critical updates" and "recommended updates" for its software and periodically bundles the accumulated fixes along with new "features" into so-called service packs. Users of Windows and Office applications are exhorted to keep their software current through automatic or manually applied updates. Indeed, whenever a new virus or worm or trojan wreaks havoc in the digital landscape, the Microsoft PR juggernaut swings into action and implies that the problem is, at least in part, the fault of irresponsible users who have not installed all the latest fixes.

Unfortunately, the patches that plug leaks in security come packaged with things you may neither need nor want but which are inseparable from the rest of the bundle. Among these are fixes that actually break things.

Office XP SP3 is a prime example. While Microsoft campaigns loudly against spam email, an unwanted and unannounced facility in SP3 effectively cripples anti-spam software.

My office uses a very effective bayesian filter that manages to catch virtually every one of the 100-plus spam that assault me each day. Like most good anti-spam software, it checks my contact list to avoid false positives that would incorrectly quarantine a legitimate message from someone I know. Everything worked quietly and perfectly until we installed SP3 on our machines. Now, whenever Outlook accesses email, spam filtering is interrupted by what Alan Cooper aptly refers to as a "blocking bulletin", in this case the modal message shown below.

"A program is trying to access e-mail addresses you have stored in Outlook. Do you want to allow this?

If this is unexpected, it may be a virus, and you should choose 'No'."

Aside from the fact that this "feature" inserted itself into a familiar user interface without so much as a by-your-leave, it is simply bad interaction design. It arrogantly wrenches control from the user, capping its arrogance with a little "Allow access for" drop down menu that first has to be enabled with the checkbox and then offers only 1, 2, 5, or 10 minutes as options. This "feature", which prevents effective spam filtering, cannot even be turned off permanently! To add insult to injury, the "No" button is the default and the "Yes" button has no access key underlined, so keyboard operation is further complicated.

In a final twist of arrogance, the dialog does not remember the last state or selection, so the user is forced through the same arrogant annoyance, every time email is accessed.

Countless times a day, the hapless user has to check the box, open the drop down, select a value that will not time out too soon, then click on "Yes". It is hard to imagine how so many inconveniences could be crowded into so little space.

We can assume that Microsoft meant well but just failed to attend to details or think through the consequences. Perhaps Microsoft is listening now and will soon correct this meddling message. We can always hope.

In the meantime, as designers the rest of us need to keep our eyes on the details, always keeping in mind the basic principle of user control. We need to avoid the hubris of foisting on users, features of dubious value that are unneeded and unwanted. And we need to provide options that give users an escape from the accidental arrogance or our well-meaning intentions.

Larry Constantine
Chief Scientist
Constantine & Lockwood, Ltd

Online videos: Engaging your users
Source: Webcredible, 6 September 2008
 
A guide to using online video on your site to offer more enticing content and provide a more compelling user experience.

The Office of the Future?
Source: Occupational Hazards via Ergonomics in the News, 5 September 2008
 
The office of the future is less about technology and more about physiology.

This year's 10 best-designed Application User Interfaces
Source: NNg, 4 September 2008
 
Nielsen Norman Group recently announced the winners in its inaugural competition to find the 10 best-designed application user interfaces of the Application Design Annual 2008.

Caroline's Corner: Buttons on Forms - where to put them, and what to call them
Source: Caroline Jarrett, 3 September 2008
 
Should you put the ‘OK’ button to the left or the right of the ‘Cancel’ button? Like so much in forms, the simple answer isn’t really appropriate. And yet, who needs another ‘it depends’?

Three Usability Gurus
Source: avangate blog, 2 September 2008
 
A personal view, but lots of good links, especially if you're new to usability.

Ofcom publishes report on Usability Event
Source: Ofcom, 1 September 2008
 
Independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries, Ofcom, has published its report on usability issues.

Get Fit for Remote Working
Source: UN, 30 August 2008
 
BT Business has announced the launch of a practical guide 'Get fit for mobile working' designed to help mobile workers avoid back, neck and arm problems.

Site Visit Interviews: from Good to Great
Source: User Focus, 29 August 2008
 
For those of you for whom the Basic Introduction to User Interviews wasn't quite enough.

Six Metrics for Managing UI Design
Source: Russell Wilson, 28 August 2008
 
A proposal of six metrics to be used for managing a user interface design department.

Don't Judge a Form by its Cover
Source: Formulate Information Design, 27 August 2008
 
The saying "don't judge a book by its cover" reminds us that looks are deceptive. It turns out that this idiom applies to forms too.