Article published In:
Information Design JournalVol. 25:3 (2019) ► pp.294–300
Change is not the only constant
Developments in information technology during the past 40 years have presented new opportunities for information designers and also posed new challenges. Computer controlled displays are now so ubiquitous that most people in everyday life need to interact with information shown on screens. Many of the characteristics of these readers have not changed: they forget things, get distracted, make assumptions, etc. Research has confirmed that designing an interaction style to reduce the demands made on people’s sensory and cognitive processes helps them accomplish tasks more easily. There has undoubtedly been progress, particularly with mobile devices. Graphical user interfaces and touch screens can make interactions feel intuitive, almost conversational, but interface glitches remain. These arise both from the tension inherent in designing for experienced and novice users, and from design decisions often involving people with differing priorities. The features of interfaces will continue to change but the challenge of finding ways to support people’s sensory, cognitive and conative characteristics will continue.
Keywords: human cognition, motivation, interface design, design team, older readers
Article outline
- 1.Awareness grew: 1979–89
- 2.Progress and potholes
-
References
References
Black, A., Luna, P., Lund, O., & Walker, S.
(Eds.) (2017) Information design: research and practice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 
Carroll, J. M., Mack, R. L., Lewis, C. H., Grischkowsky, N. L., & Robertson, S. R.
(1985) Exploring a word processor. Human Computer Interaction, 1(3), 283–307.
Griffin, J., & Wright, P.
(2008) Older readers can be distracted by embellishing graphics in text. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 740–757.
Kolers, P. A., Wrolstad, M. E., & Bouma, H.
(Eds.) (1980) Processing of Visible Language 2. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J.
(2003) Universal Principles of Design. Gloucester, MA: Rockport Publishers.
Nielsen, J.
(1993) Usability Engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Nielsen, J., & Budiu, R.
(2012) Mobile usability: Synopsis of iPad problems. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Norman, D. A.
(2011) Living with complexity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Office for National Statistics
(2020) Frequency of internet use by age group, Great Britain: 2019. Release date 18 February 2020. In Statistical bulletin: Internet users 2019. Ref number 11293. Great Britain: Office for National Statistics.
Raskin, J.
(2000) The humane interface: New directions for designing interactive systems. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Redish, J.
(2007) Letting go of the words: Writing web content that works. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J.
(2019) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction (5th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Schriver, K. A.
(1997) Dynamics in document design. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Soroka, A. J., Wright, P., Belt, S., Pham, D. T., Dimov, S., De Roure, D. C., & Petrie, H.
(2006) User choices for modalities of instructional information. Proceedings of 4th International IEEE Conference on Industrial Informatics (pp. 16–18). INDIN’06. August 2006, Singapore.
Te’eni, D., Carey, J., & Zhang, P.
(2007) Human computer interaction: Developing effective organizational information systems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Tufte, E. R.
(1983) The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Wong, C. Y., Ibrahim, R., Hamid, T. A., & Mansor, E. I.
(2020) Measuring expectation for an affordance gap on a smartphone user interface and its usage among older adults. Human Technology, 16(1), 6–34.
Wright, P.
(1971) Writing to be understood: Why use sentences? Applied Ergonomics, 2(4), 207–209, 61, 93–134.
(1977) Presenting technical information: A survey of research findings. Instructional Science, 61, 93–134.
(1978) Feeding the information eaters: Suggestions for integrating pure and applied research on language comprehension. Instructional Science, 7(3), 249–312.
(1988) The need for theories of NOT reading: Some psychological aspects of the human-computer interface. In B. A. G. Elsendoorn & H. Bouma (Eds.), Working models of human perception (pp. 319–340). London: Academic Press.
(2006) Talking computers and diversity in older audiences. Gerontechnology, 4(4), 187–189.
Wright, P., Belt, S., & John, C.
(2003) Fancy graphics can deter older users: A comparison of two interfaces for exploring healthy lifestyle options. In E. O’Neill, P. Palanque, & P. Johnson (Eds.), People and computers 17: Proceedings of HCI 2003: Designing for society (pp. 315–325). London: Springer-Verlag (London) Ltd.
Wright, P., Creighton, P., & Threlfall, S. M.
(1982) Some factors determining when instructions will be read. Ergonomics, 25(3), 225–237.
Wright, P., Lickorish, A., Hull, A. J., & Umellen, N.
(1995) Graphics in written directions: Appreciated by readers not by writers. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 41–59.
Wright, P., & Reid, F.
(1973) Written information: Some alternatives to prose for expressing the outcomes of complex contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 160–166.
Wright, P., Soroka, A. J., & Belt, S.
(2010) Audio changes how older people follow animations. Gerontechnology, 9(2), 340.
Wright, P., Soroka, A. J., Belt, S., Pham, D., Dimov, S., DeRoure, D., & Petrie, H.
(2008) Modality preference and performance when seniors consult online information. Gerontechnology, 7(3), 293–304.