Contextual Interfaces - Why Physical Interfaces Struggle
I absolutely hate how my car stereo works.
Lets see. To change the playlist on ipod on my Alpine 9857 I need to take it off M.I.X. Press this unmarked square icon, slowly scroll around, select a playlist, choose the song then it finally starts playing. Mind you, none of these are properly marked and most of them are actually marked as other functions. It took me about 10 minutes of digging through the manual to finally figure out how to play music from my iPod. Not a great way to drop $450.
The problem is that the car stereo’s interface is stuck in whatever media format is popular at the time. The metaphors for the controls all play off a combination of tape and CD controls found on most stereos in the mid 90’s. You’re starting to see some MP3 functionality clumsily find its way into the stereo interface but its an average experience at best. They provide an average experience because they are restrained by their physical interfaces.
Learning from the Poster Child of Contextual Interfaces
Not to be an Apple fan boy, but one of the best examples of a contextual interface is the Apple iPhone. A major reason why they didn’t use a physical keyboard is that in order for the iPhone to provide a simple experience, the interface had to make sense and fulfill basic needs for the user at any point in time. If I’m on the iPod section, I need controls and buttons that are relevant to that program at that specific point in time, not a keyboard. The interface always gives me what I need properly labeled and nothing more.
In contrast to the car stereo, you’re locked into a set amount of buttons to interface with the stereo. They don’t adapt well to every single situation because they’re labeled for a primary task and then the user has to infer what its secondary function might be. Or they provide way too many buttons and give the user too many irrelevant choices. Not exactly the simple functionality I need while driving on the freeway.
Summing it up
Physical menus will always struggle to provide the right choices for the user as our needs grow more complex. Contextual menus give designers the ability to provide the user with an interface that is relevant and simple and more importantly adaptable to users ever changing needs.
Update:
VW’s take on the car stereo
November 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Interesting post.
It’s funny - there’s a bit of a trade off I think. For the benefit of an adaptable interface, we sacrifice the benefits of tactile feedback. Of course on a car stereo, tactile feedback isn’t a big deal, but on things like airplane controls or analog synth knobs, these can be tough to replace.
There’s only so much you can do with reflections, drop shadows, physics, and sounds etc.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I think there’s a time and place for both. For really simple objects that serve one purpose, its usually better to have a singular physical interface. The tradeoff of adaptability for tactile feeling would not be ideal. But if you have a very complex system (ie, car stereos, phones, etc) then the tactile feedback does not outweigh the benefits of a contextual interface.
November 16th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I agree with you.
I remember being so frustrated trying to use the ASR-X sampler because the entire system had to be manipulated with tiny buttons and a weak little lcd screen. That actually would have been a good place for a blended approach: nice big pads for tapping out beats, but a contextual menu for actually manipulating the system.