Page 175 -

144 Chapter 5 Understanding how interfaces affect users

have a positive effect on people's perception of the system's usability (Tractin-
sky, 1997). Moreover, when the "look and feel" of an interface is pleasing (e.g.,
beautiful graphics, nice feel to the way the elements have been put together, well-
designed fonts, elegant use of images and color) users are likely to be more tolerant
of its usability (e.g., they may be prepared to wait a few more seconds for a website
to download). As we have argued before, interaction design should not just be
about usability per se, but should also include aesthetic design, such as how pleasur-
able an interface is to look at (or listen to). The key is to get the right balance be-
tween usability and other design concerns, like aesthetics (See Figure 5.3 on Color
Plate 6).

A question of style or stereotype? Figure 5.4 shows two differently designed dialog boxes.
Describe how they differ in terms of style. Of the two, which one do you prefer? Why?
Which one do you think (i) Europeans would like the most and (ii) Americans would like
the most?

Comment Aaron Marcus, a graphic designer, created the two designs in an attempt to provide appealing
interfaces. Dialog box A was designed for white American females while dialog box B was
designed for European adult male intellectuals. The rationale behind Marcus's ideas was that
European adult male intellectuals like "suave prose, a restrained treatment of information
density, and a classical approach to font selection (e.g., the use of serif type in axial symmetric
layouts similar to those found in elegant bronze European building identification signs)." In
contrast, white American females "prefer a more detailed presentation, curvilinear shapes
and the absence of some of the more-brutal terms . . . favored by male software engineers."
When the different interfaces were empirically tested by Teasley et al. (1994), their re-
sults did not concur with Marcus's assumptions. In particular, they found that the European
dialog box was liked the best by all people and was considered most appropriate for all
users. Moreover, the round dialog box designed for women was strongly disliked by every-
one. The assumption that women like curvilinear features clearly was not true in this con-
text. At the very least, displaying the font labels in a circular plane makes them more
difficult to read than when presented in the conventionally accepted horizontal plane.

Another popular kind of expressive interface is the friendly interface agent. A
general assumption is that novices will feel more at ease with this kind of "compan-
ion" and will be encouraged to try things out, after listening, watching, following,
and interacting with them. For example, Microsoft pioneered a new class of agent-
based software, called Bob, aimed at new computer users (many of whom were
seen as computer-phobic). The agents were presented as friendly characters, in-
cluding a friendly dog and a cute bunny. An underlying assumption was that having
these kinds of agents on the screen would make the users feel more comfortable
and at ease with using the software. An interface metaphor of a warm, cozy living
room, replete with fire, furnishings, and furniture was provided (see Figure 5.5)-
again intended to convey a comfortable feeling.
Since the creation of Bob, Microsoft has developed other kinds of agents, in-
cluding the infamous "Clippy" (a paper clip that has human-like qualities), as part