Cognitive Design

The May/June 07 edition of Technology Review was focused on design. The lead article introduces the idea of a beautiful machine as something that is minimally complicated. You may need to set up a free account to get access.

Watch the video and listen to the editor’s description of his new Apple computer. Wow has Apple mastered the ability to create specific mental states in users (one of the goals of cognitive design). Just in case you don’t get to the video here is some of the narrative:

“I love my MacBook Pro because its broad but slim body seems luxuriously solid yet also gracefully light. I love how the resistance subtly increases when I press a key, flattering my touch. I love the crisp definition of the graphics on its large, luminous screen. Most of all, I love how all my Macintosh software shares an elegant iconography and navigation scheme, and how all my Apple hardware works together uncomplainingly.”

The concept of minimally complicated is an intertesting design principle. Another quote from the editor:

“That is, they should have no more functions than is reasonable given their form; every function should be no more complicated than it needs to be; and the way each function works should be intuitively easy to understand. As Albert Einstein may have said, “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.” ”

This advice is especially relevant as we try and repackage existing functionality into new forms as is the case with many mobile devices. For example, email as something engineered for a desktop PC, needs to be de-functioned a bit to fit the form of a handheld. So I still have the complicated functionality of email but it has been minimized to fit the new form. Presto minimal complication.

Of course there is the aesthetics of this too…..

Augment cognition (AC) is another rapidly emerging field that is a close cousin of cognitive design. Like NeuroErgonomics it is focused on creating artifacts that integrate with human cognition to amplify or accelerate it (5th level of cognitive design). More specifically, the goal of AC is to develop closed-loop human computer systems that increase cognitive capabilities by an order of magnitude.

There have been four international conferences held on the topic and an International Society has been formed so the field has traction. So far no killer app.

DARPA has a strong interest in AC has has even prepared a video on the future of augmented cognition. Must warn you it is a bit long but they are trying to breath some realism and design detail into the scenario.

We will track AC closely in this blog.

Neuroergonmics is an emerging field intent on combining neuroscience with human factors to design technologies that better fit our brain. Similar in spirit to cognitive design but more focused on the biological (neuro) then the psychological (cognitive) and narrower in scope (technology versus any artifact). No matter, it is an important related field and will get coverage in this blog.

The principle text in the field Neuroergonomics: How the brain works, describes the field this way:

”It combines two disciplines-neuroscience, the study of brain function, and human factors, the study of how to match technology with the capabilities and limitations of people so they can work effectively and safely. The goal of merging these two fields is to use the startling discoveries of human brain and physiological functioning both to inform the design of technologies in the workplace and home, and to provide new training methods that enhance performance, expand capabilities, and optimize the fit between people and technology.”

Not surprisingly, most of the methodology involves brain scanning techniques (EEG, ERP fMRI, Optical, trans-cranial Doppler) but there are also chapters on eye movement (link between neuro and cognitive) and most importantly (for cognitive designers) a chapter on “Brains in the wild” or tracking brains outside the lab.

There is an entire section on perception, cognition and emotion as well as a section that covers applications on brain computer interfaces and related devices

Neuroergonomics, with an emphasis on brain-machine fit lays a scientific foundations for work on the 5th level of cognitive design where the artifact integrates with or mediates human cognition.

I will provide a more detailed review each section of the book (with emphasis on implications for cognitive designers) later in the year.

The 29th annual meeting of the cognitive science society was held August 2007. The theme was applications of cognitive science in the real world. The proceedings have several gems for cognitive designers including the section on Cognitive Science in the Design of Graphical Images and Interfaces.

An item of special interest is the emerging field of visual analytics which was explained as follows:

“Visual analytics takes a cognitive approach to the design of the interactive visual interface. It is informed by graphical design and the perceptual and cognitive sciences. Its goal is to produce computer-generated graphical representations of complex data sets that support users’ innate “visual intelligence” to help them to understand the situations those data represent.” The idea is to develop algorthims that can create visual displays of complex information sets as well as graphical designers and artist can.

A broader definition is provided by James J. Thomas and Kristin A. Cook. They look at visual analytics as a field out to solve the information overload problem by developing a “science of analytical reasoning facilitated by interactive visual interfaces”. They offer a compelling call to action for in their 2005 book: Illuminating the Path: The Research and Development Agenda for Visual Analytics. I will do a blog review of the book and the 2006 and 2007 IEEE conferences on the topic and unpack the implications for cognitive designers later this month.

If successful, visual analytics will provide designers with techniques to lower the cognitive load associated with the graphical display of information on any artifact.

Lottery tickets are one of the best examples of cognitive design that we have. After all, they have transformed something consumers hate to do (pay taxes) into a multi-billion dollar form of entertainment. The design features and why they work (leverage cognitive biases, low cognitive load, high visceral impact, etc.) will be covered extensively in this blog.

For many buying a lottery ticket is an easy thing to do. It gives a sense of hope and momentary excitement that is sometimes shared with friends. These are powerful mental states - hope, excitement and connection all for a dollar or two! If that is what consumers really want when they buy a lottery ticket then they pay off every time.

The information design of financial products and services is very sensitive to the cognitive biases of consumers. A great example of this is the payment/interest rate bias. Because of this bias most of us will tend to underestimate the interest rate on a loan when we are given information about the monthly payment and duration - or the stream of payments we have to make to repay the loan.

So in practice, we tend to take higher interest rate loans if we are only (or mostly) shown information on monthly payments and duration. A study by two business professors from Dartmouth show just how far this effect can go:

”Firms provide frames that cater to bias, and biased consumers sort into different contracts than unbiased consumers. This leads to segmentation across firms in how they present information to consumers, which customers they attract, and equilibrium prices”.

The market segments by cognitive bias!

This effect was found, according to to study, in non-banking lending practices only.

Systematic bias in perception, memory, interpretation and reasoning is a key aspect of cognition. These biases are used to explain seemingly irrational behavior (e.g. buying a lottery ticket), improve decision making (e.g. training against the “beautiful works well” bias in hiring), the design of financial products (I will save more tomorrow) engineering safety procedures, crafting magic tricks, developing advertising messages and a host of other applications.

Designing to enhance and support cognition (or cognitive design) means understanding and managing (i.e. overcoming or paternalistically leveraging) the cognitive biases at work in your design. To get an idea of the cognitive biases that may be impacting the effectiveness of your design check out the great list on Wikipedia.

Metaphors reveal a lot about how we think. Unpacking metaphors means unpacking thought and emotion - an essential task for cognitive designers.

Tangled Spaghetti in My Head: Making use of metaphor is a brief introduction to an important technique - based on asking 12 questions for exploring client metaphors. This technique is used in therapy but it can be easily adapted to design conversations. Try it and let me know how it works.

Finding unmet cognitive needs (especially ones rooted in emotions and other visceral factors) is a wellspring for product and service innovation. Discovering these needs can be tricky. Listening for metaphors (or doing a metaphor hunt) has always been a good technique.

Dan Saffer writes a to-the-point Masters thesis (Carnegie Mellon School of Design) on the role of metaphor in interaction design. Clearly illustrates how metaphors lower the cognitive load of an artifact by translating abstract concepts into something more familiar and visceral for users. He warns:

“Unquestionably, companies have fostered onto users all sorts of misbegotten metaphors, stuffing existing functionality into uncomfortable and awkward metaphors. Yet, when used properly, they can be a powerful tool for conceptualizing, orienting, and personifying products.”

If you don’t want to read the entire thesis check out Dan’s work on slide share.