02/10/2009 10:43 by buza ()
I’m currently spending a few days in Sanibel Island, FL for the Intelligent User Interfaces conference (IUI09), where I presented a short paper about some of our old projects (OpenCode and E15:Web). The paper was part of a IUI workshop entitled Visual Interfaces to the Social and Semantic Web, with a keynote from MIT alum David Huynh. One point that struck a chord with attendees was the need for increased focus in visual aesthetics and presentation with respect to technical projects involving the semantic web. Having presented OpenCode at a design conference (AIGA) as well as a technical conference (IUI) placed our work in a unique category. Thus far, visual aesthetics is something that appears to be almost nonexistent here at the conference, which is a bit unfortunate as we’ve known about the gap between design and technical innovation for a very long time. A strong feeling of déjà vu has fallen upon me as I have discussions about this subject that, for me, I was having nearly a decade ago.
The issue is that when doing research that involves the web, these researchers need users. To get users, they need to produce something that people might want to use. If they produce something that’s ugly, difficult to use, and overly esoteric, they’re hard pressed to find anyone that gives a sh*t. Without users, they can’t get results. In my opinion, in order for much of this research to move beyond the prototype stage, researchers need to do more than talk about the need for aesthetics. AFAIK, that’s all that’s ever happened.
That’s not to say that everything here has been atrocious, however. I’ve seen a few visualizations that could be welcome additions to data visualization sites like Information Aesthetics and Visual Complexity with a little polish. In general, however, I think that IUI09 lends at least some confirmation to the notion that intelligence and attractiveness are mutually exclusive.
February 10th, 2009 at 16:28
I wonder why this is still such a new concept for academics/industry in technology to comprehend. I always thought it was because they like ugly things that look like shit. I mean, these “conferences” have people who print out a bunch of powerpoint slides, tile them up to call it their “poster.” But maybe it’s because they are totally clueless.
You ask these guys at the conference; you’re at a bar and can only talk to one girl, would you talk to the hot one or the ugly one. They will probably reply, “why would I be at a bar, I don’t drink.”
February 10th, 2009 at 17:50
I would argue that it is still “new” at academic conferences because most don’t (want to?) see that there is research in it. To research the value of “aesthetics” (which I consider to be considerably more than visual style alone), one needs methods that are significantly different from the performance tests that are prevalent in research today. Next to the completely different terminologies, this makes it not all that simple.
February 11th, 2009 at 08:33
I completely agree. There was indeed some indication from presenters (actualy, just Georg Groh) that even if aesthetics were considered in their research, they wouldn’t have the first idea on how to go about evaluating it, which I understand.
Just about the time I started thinking that what needs to be done is focus on usability as opposed to aesthetics, one moderator referenced a few conclusions reached at CHI 2008 (taken directly from his slides):
- usability testing considered harmful
- not helpful for inventions in prototype stage
- early usability evaluation cuts off design experimentation
Intuitively, I guess these make sense, but I have this feeling that it’s a cop out. I would think that of all research fields, HCI should be the one most sensitive to usability and aesthetics.