Demonstrating contradictions in a Graphical User Interface

Transcription

1 From the SelectedWorks of Umakant Mishra June, 2010 Demonstrating contradictions in a Graphical User Interface Umakant Mishra Available at:

2 Demonstrating contradictions in a Graphical User Interface By- Umakant Mishra, Bangalore, India (This article was first published in June 2010 issue of triz-journal Later the article was also published in Nov 2011 issue of TRIZsite journal. This article is from the same source file.) Contents Contents Introduction The problem of increasing number of GUI elements The problem of size of the GUI elements The problem of displaying Scrollbars The problem of menu hierarchy The problem of look and feel The problem of increasing user friendliness The problem of GUI customization The problem of operational errors Summary...14 Reference to patents:...15 Other references:...16 Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 1

3 1. Introduction The concept of Graphical User Interface (or GUI) evolved during eighties in the computing Industry. The early GUIs like Macintosh system-1 (1984), Microsoft Windows-1 (1985) etc. were substantially improved during nineties, MS Windows 95 (1995), Mac OS 8 (1997) etc. The current day GUIs like KDE 3.5, Mac OS X 10.5, Microsoft Windows Vista etc. are far superior to the previous ones. A graphical user interface has many advantages over its predecessor the Textual User Interface. The most fascinating feature of a graphical user interface is that it helps users performing very complex operations at simple mouse clicks. The younger generation computer users are so accustomed with graphical interfaces that many of them fail to believe that there were software applications in past without having any graphical user interface. However, designing a GUI is not so easy as it may appear to outside. The developer has to face many difficulties while improving the features of a GUI. In many cases improving one feature of a GUI results in worsening another feature of it, thus leading to a situation known as contradiction in TRIZ. Many such contradictions have been solved by different inventors in the past. We will demonstrate some important contradictions in this article and discuss alternative solutions for each contradiction. Some solutions that are already patented are mentioned with the patent number. Other solutions are either not patented or not patentable because they are known solutions. 2. The problem of increasing number of GUI elements The advanced applications of the recent era include more and more elements into the Graphical User Interface. But the biggest drawback of a GUI is that it permanently consumes some active area of the display screen. As a result, a part of the display screen is always masked and the amount of user information that could have been viewed is reduced. For example, a toolbox in a CAD application, although useful, causes lot of discomfort as it obscures the drawings. This situation creates a contradiction. We want to display more and more visual elements on the screen so that the user can have easy access to more features of the GUI. But the physical size of the screen is limited and cannot be easily expanded. This limitation of display space urges an individual to reduce the number of GUI elements. A physical contradiction can be framed as follows. Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 2

4 #1: Contradiction of increasing number of GUI elements We want to display more visual elements on the screen so that the user can have easy access to more number of features. But at the same time we want to display less number of visual items on the screen to improve visibility and navigation. Possible Solutions: Using large physical screens, which effectively provide more display space (Principle-37: Expansion). [Note: The conventional name of this principle Thermal Expansion has been renamed as Expansion by the author because of more relevance in IT field. Ref. pp 409, TRIZ Principles for Information Technology.] Using virtual display to expand the effective size of a display screen by utilizing the space beyond the edge of the display (Principle-17: Another Dimension). Reducing size of the fonts, pictures and graphical elements can reduce the demand for screen space and thereby display more information on the same size of screen (Principle-35: Parameter Change). Instead of reducing the size of fonts or graphics one may increase the screen resolution that may effectively reduces the size of the visual elements (Principle-13: Other Way Round). Displaying only the important GUI elements by default and display other elements later on demand (Principle-16: Partial or Excessive Action). Divide GUI elements in groups (Principle-1: Segmentation) and create containers (like menus or folder buttons) to hold a group of similar elements (Principle-7: Nested doll). This method saves screen space as only the container items are displayed instead of the individual items. Patent proposes to hide the toolbars during normal operation and display the toolbars when the pointing device moves into a predefined control region. When the toolbars are hidden or displayed, the data screen is automatically resized accordingly (Principle-15: Dynamize). Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 3

5 Allowing overlapping windows in order to accommodate more number of windows than the available physical screen size (Principle-17: Another dimension). Using dropdown menu (Principle-15: Dynamize), cascading menu (Principle-17: Another Dimension) etc. to present more items without permanently occupying the screen. A three-dimensional presentation is more effective to present more icons on a limited screen space (Principle-17: Another Dimension). A cube has six sides and therefore can display much more icons than a two dimensional flat panel. Patent discloses a translucent fourdimensional interface where the icons on the rear side of the cube are also visible (Principle-17: Another Dimension, Principle-32: Color Change). Zoom in and zoom out concepts- when the user wants to view a large graphical universe within a limited area of display screen, he has to zoom out the graphical universe to reduce its size. Conversely, when the user is interested in a detailed view of a particular object, he has to zoom in the object-in-interest (Principle-37: Expansion). Patent proposes to enlarge the font of menu items for clarity of viewing when the user moves the cursor over the items on the menu bar. 3. The problem of size of the GUI elements One fundamental requirement of a Graphical User Interface is that its elements should be clearly visible. Hence the size of the fonts, icons and other visual elements should be reasonably large in size. But as we saw above, in many situations a designer is forced to reduce the size of elements in order to accommodate more elements within the limited screen space. But reducing the size of visual elements reduces the clarity and visibility of the elements. This situation again leads to a contradiction. We want to display the visual elements in large size for better visibility and easy identification. But increasing the size of visual elements requires larger display space. Let s present this situation through a physical contradiction. Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 4

6 #2: Contradiction of the size of GUI elements We want to display the visual elements in large size for better visibility, but at the same time we want to display the visual elements in small size to accommodate more number of visual elements on the display screen. Possible Solutions: Reducing number of display elements- such as hiding unwanted elements (Principle-2: Taking out), grouping related commands and keeping them inside folder icons (Principle-5: Merging, Principle-7: Nested Doll) etc. Using a scroll bar or other scrolling mechanism to scroll a larger virtual screen within the limited physical screen (Principle-15: Dynamize). Displaying items in small size by default and increasing their size when the cursor is moved over them for better visibility (Principle-15: Dynamize). A smart icon also provides a solution to this problem. For example, the balloon help in Apple Macintosh and tooltips in Microsoft Windows describe the functions of various GUI elements in a pop-up display (Principle-17: Another dimension) when a user moves the cursor onto the desired icon (Principle-15: Dynamize). Transparent or translucent graphical components that don t obscure the client data (Principle-32: Color Change). Patent proposes an enlarged virtual display using a head mount, which makes the small items visible even to the visually impaired users (Principle-37: Expansion). Using sliding out interface- Patent discloses a sliding out command bar which is displayed when the user moves the display pointer to a location near the target image (Principle-34: Discard and Recover). 4. The problem of displaying Scrollbars Scrolling is an essential function of a GUI, which helps viewing large items in a small physical screen. Hence scrollbars are very commonly used to scroll frames or windows. But a major drawback of the scrollbars is that they permanently Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 5

7 occupy some screen real estate and thereby aggravates the problem further. Besides the scrollbars require a lot of cursor operations. Thus we face a contradiction here. We want to use scrollbars because they are necessary for scrolling operations (and scrolling is essential for viewing large items especially in small screens). But the scrollbars themselves occupy some amount of screen space, which reduces the effective screen space and thereby aggravates the problem further. We want to use scrollbars for the scrolling operation but we don t want to sacrifice screen space for the scrollbars. A physical contradiction can be framed as below. #3: Contradiction of displaying scrollbars We want to display scrollbars for scrolling the display screen but on the other hand we don t want to display the scrollbars as they permanently occupy some amount of screen space. Possible Solutions: Reducing the scrollbar size (Principle-35: Parameter change), or using scroll buttons instead of scrollbars (Principle-28: Mechanics Substitution). Using a pulling concept typically with a thumb icon instead of conventional scrolling with scrollbars (Principle-28: Mechanics Substitution). Displaying scrollbars only when the cursor goes to the border of the window and hide the scrollbars when the cursor is away (Principle-34: Discard and recover). Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 6

8 Implement automatic scrolling when the cursor is placed on predefined areas (Principle-25: Self Service) Using the navigation keys on the keyboard for scrolling (Principle-28: Mechanics Substitution) Patent proposes an inline scroll control, which is displayed directly on the worksheet (Principle-17: Another dimension). These scroll controls are small in size compared to scrollbars and therefore require less screen space (Principle-35: Change Parameter). Patent provides an automatic scrolling during drag and drop operation. When the mouse indicator is over a predefined area of the window (say window border) the system scrolls the target window to facilitate dropping of the dragged objects (Principle-15: Dynamize). 5. The problem of menu hierarchy As we saw in the above paragraphs, the problem of display space can be effectively addressed by (i) increasing levels in hierarchy (such as, using folder icons and sub-menus etc.) and (ii) scrolling (that displays more items within the limited display space). But both these solutions affect the navigation adversely. For example, when there are more hierarchies in a menu (or directory or treenavigator) the user has to expand various branches to search a desired item. The following physical contradiction can express the situation. Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 7

9 #4: Contradiction levels in menu hierarchy We want to create more levels in the menu hierarchy to accommodate more menu items or child nodes. But at the same time we don t want more levels in the menu hierarchy as that affects the navigation adversely. Possible Solutions: Finding an intelligent method to jump from the current directory to the target directory, or from the current menu position to the desired menu option directly instead of traversing long through different branches of the tree (using the super-system). Programming the GUI to intuitively pull the cursor pointer near to the desired element so that the user needs to do less pointer movement (Principle-10: Prior Action). Alternatively the menu or other selectable item may be displayed near the cursor pointer so that the pointer needs to move a lesser distance (Principle-10: Prior Action). Patent places the elements with higher access frequency in a screen location that is more conveniently accessible by the user (Principle-10: Prior Action). The invention also automatically moves the elements between a first area (better accessible) to a second area (lesser accessible) on the screen based on the changing behavior of the user (Principle-15: Dynamize). Patent provides a navigation system based on real world metaphors. The invention uses the concepts of real world objects like streets, hallways, rooms and doors which simplifies the navigational routes and enables the user to navigate intuitively through the GUI (Principle-26: Copying). Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 8

10 Providing bookmark bar and bookmark buttons to open programs, files, pages, views etc. directly without navigating through a number of steps (using a super-system). Patent proposes a contextual menu or pop-up menu that displays only the commands that are most frequently used with a particular type of object. Displaying less number of commands makes it easy for the user to find and select the desired command from the menu. 6. The problem of look and feel Better look and feel attracts the users and thereby makes a GUI more popular. But implementing a better look and feel is not easy as different users have different choices. Even if the developer applies the best look and feel, the same may not be liked by some groups of users. Besides the same user who likes a look and feel today may not like it tomorrow. There is another problem involved in the look and feel of the GUIs. Even if the look and feel of a GUI is good it may not be satisfactory unless it matches with the look and feel of other GUIs running on a computer. But different GUIs are developed by different vendors at different periods of time. Although each vendor will try to improve the look and feel of his own product, he cannot ensure its visual compatibility with other GUIs developed by other vendors. This situation leads to a contradiction. We cannot impose any specific look and feel to be followed by the vendors, as that would restrict their innovation. But we want the look and feel of all these GUIs developed by different vendors to match with each other as otherwise they would be annoying to the user. The contradiction statement is as below. #5: Contradiction of the look and feel of a GUI We want to implement fixed standards and norms for implementing look and feel so that the look and feel of different GUIs developed by different vendors will be compatible to each other. But on the other hand we don t want to implement any fixed standard on look and feel as that would restrict the innovation and creativity of the venders. Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 9

11 Possible Solutions: The developer can provide multiple look and feel features in the GUI with a selection option. The user can choose the option of his choice and get the desired look and feel. (Principle-15: Dynamize). Patent discloses an appearance management layer which provides both the developers and the end users an ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the desktop. The appearance management layer is a level of abstraction between all the applications and the graphic subsystem (Principle-24: Intermediary). Themes contain overall impressions of a GUI. The user can switch between themes to customize the visual appearance and behavior of an application even at runtime (Principle-15: Dynamize). 7. The problem of increasing user friendliness User friendliness is a complex concept which includes many features like easy to learn, easy to operate, easy to navigate etc. But the current day programs are very advanced and complex. The developer tries to include various supportive features to counterbalance their complexities. This situation creates a contradiction. If the GUI provides supportive features for the beginners then it becomes boring for the advanced users. On the other hand if it provides supportive features for the advanced users, it looks confusing to the beginners. If the GUI provides supportive features for all levels of users, it may be boring and confusing to all levels of users. We want to provide supportive features for all levels of users but we don t want the GUI to be boring or confusing to any level of users. #6: Contradiction of providing supportive features We want to provide supportive features for different levels of users, as that would help them using the software more efficiently, but at the same time we don t want to provide supportive features for any level of users as features for one level of users can be boring or confusing to other level of users. Possible Solutions: The GUI may provide various assistances only on demand (i.e., when the user requests for it) and avoid unsolicited pro-active help (solving the problem in the super-system or the sub-system). Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 10

12 The GUI may allow the user to customize its features. The user will customize the features that will be suitable to his level and expertise (Principle-15: Dynamize). US Patent suggests to separate advanced functions from basic functions. The GUI would display only the basic functions at startup and not the advanced functions (Principle-2: Taking out). The advanced functions could be displayed on request, say, by checking an advanced option checkbox (Principle-15: Dynamize). The GUIs may be intelligent to determine the level of a user and configure its features intelligently to make them suitable to the specific user, for the specific machine under the specific working environments (Principle-25: Self Service). 8. The problem of GUI customization A GUI is meant for the user. Hence, the GUI should ideally contain all the features that a user requires and should not contain any of the features that the user does not require. But this is a complex situation, as because the requirements are different for different users. An extremely well designed user interface may even fail to meet some expectations of a specific category of users. One of the obvious solutions to this problem is customization by the user. But customization might require complicated programming and demand a lot of valuable time and effort, which could divert a user from his core activity. We don t want to divert a user from his core activity and waste his time and effort on customization. The situation can be stated in the following physical contradiction. #7: Contradiction of GUI customization We want the end users to customize the GUI as they can best do it as per their changing requirement from time to time, but on the other hand we don t want the end users to customize the GUI as that will waste their time and effort. Possible Solutions: The developer should pre-build all possible functionalities at the time of software development (Principle-10: Prior action). The GUI should include a customization interface (Principle-24: Intermediary), and allow the user to customize the GUI by adding or removing the functionalities (such as, Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 11

13 menu items, buttons or other) without getting into the difficulties of learning complicated programming languages (Principle-15: Dynamize). The GUI may allow a user to create buttons (or menu items) by dragging and dropping controls on to the toolbar or similar designated area (Principle-15: Dynamize) The GUI may allow removing buttons (menu items or other GUI elements) just by dragging them out of the GUI (Principle-34: Discard and recover). US Patent discloses an easy method of dragging pull down menu items and dropping onto a toolbar. This method converts a menu item to a toolbar item and displays the item permanently like any other toolbar item. The advanced menus or advanced buttons should appear or disappear automatically according to the level of expertise and requirement of the user (Principle-15: Dynamize, Principle-25: Self Service). The GUI elements may be automatically added, deleted or altered according to the changing requirement of the user (Principle-25: Self Service). Change the concept from user-customization to auto-customization (Principle-25: Self Service). 9. The problem of operational errors If a GUI is operated wrongly it can obviously lead to undesirable results. Although such errors are caused by human operations, the design of a GUI also plays a significant role. A well-designed GUI guides the user and restrains him from making mistakes, whereas, a poorly built GUI can confuse the user and thereby Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 12

14 mislead him to commit more mistakes. A GUI that is less error-prone is certainly more efficient and productive. #8: The contradiction of user freedom and operational errors On one hand the GUI should provide operational freedom to the user to enter any valid data (or click on any screen region) to encourage his creativity. On the other hand the GUI should restrict the user from entering any kind of data (or click on any screen region) as that would result in operational errors. Possible Solutions: Reducing errors through input validation- the data entry controls like check boxes, selection boxes, submit buttons can be improved to reduce errors in data feeding (Principle-9: Prior Counteraction). Hiding irrelevant options- the GUI should filter out all options that are not relevant to the current operational context of the user in order to reduce the chances of selecting wrong options (Principle-2: Taking out). Displaying only the desirable functions- the GUI should display only those functions or GUI elements, which are relevant to the skill, habit and mood of the user (Principle-25: Self service, Principle-15: Dynamize). Reconfirming uncommon operations- the GUI may ask for a confirmation before executing any risky or uncommon operation. The GUI may display alerts and warnings wherever appropriate (Principle-8: Counterweight). Providing rescues and error corrections- the GUI may automatically correct the errors made by a user. It may also provide some kind of rescue operations for recovering damages (Principle-11: Cushioning). Isolating risky items from other items in the menu and displaying separately to avoid the chances of finger slips during selection (Principle- 2: Taking out). US Patent discloses a method of resizing windows that visually indicates to the user that the window cannot be further extended. When the user tries to extend the window beyond its limit it displays a graphical icon that provides an immediate and perceivable feedback about the Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 13

15 forbidden attempt. The invention uses a visual feedback to communicate the user that the border is not further expandable (Principle-23: Feedback). Patent provides a preview capability that helps a user to see the results of his selection before finally closing a dialog. As the user can immediately see the consequences of his selection there is a very less chance of his making a wrong selection. In order to do a non-default (or special purpose) drag and drop operation the user may have to press a special key on the keyboard during the drag and drop operation to ensure his intention (patent ) (Principle-8: Counterweight, Principle-35: Parameter change). 10. Summary The concept of contradiction is quite interesting in TRIZ solution process. A contradiction is a situation where solving one problem leads to another problem. In a physical contradiction we want to have something for specific reasons but at the same time we don t want to have the same for other reasons. A contradiction can be solved by applying Inventive Principles, moving to a sub-system or supersystem, or by applying other methods. This article demonstrates some important contradictions in a GUI. We want to display more GUI elements but we don t want to sacrifice navigation comfort; we want to scroll using scrollbars but we don t want to sacrifice space for the scrollbars; we want to scroll the screen for viewing large items but we don t want to move the pointer for scrolling. In nutshell we want all the good features and don t want any drawbacks or limitations. Each contradiction in this article is addressed with a number of solutions. All solutions are not good at all situations. Some solutions may be found extremely useful in certain situations while some solutions may lead to further Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 14

16 contradictions (contradiction chains) creating space to be discussed in a separate article. Reference to patents: 1. US Patent , Method and apparatus for providing conditional cascading in a computer system graphical user interface, Invented by Bloomfield et al., assignee International Business Machines Corporation, issued Jun US Patent , Auto-scrolling during a drag and drop operation "Four dimensional Graphical User Interface, Invented by Eng Lim Goh, assigned by Silicon Graphics Inc, Oct US Patent , Graphical user interface for navigating between levels displaying hallway and room metaphors, Invented by Lynch et al., Assigned by General Magic, Issued Nov US Patent , Sliding out interface, Invented by Rubin et al, assigned by Microsoft Corporation, Jun US Patent , Signalling the user attempting to resize an window beyond the limit, Invented by Andrea Argiolas, Assigned by IBM, Sep US Patent , Menu selection with menu stem and submenu size enlargemen t, Invented by Sciammarella et al., Assigned by Sony Corporation, Sep US Patent , Method and system for efficient organization of selectable elements on a graphical user interface, Invented by Nielsen, assigned by Sun Microsystems, issued Dec 1999 & May US Patent , System and method for customizing appearance and behavior of graphical user interfaces, Invented by Jr. Johnston et al., Assigned by Apple Computer Inc, issued Aug US Patent , Method of providing preview capability to a dialog box, Invented by Taylor et al., assigned by Adobe Systems Incorporated, may US Patent , Graphical user interface inline scroll control, Invented by Little et al., assigned by IBM, issued Jan US Patent , Enlarged virtual display, Invented by Arthur Zwern, Assigned by Vega Vista Inc., Sep US Patent , Method and system for displaying graphical objects on a display screen, Invented by Kim Smith, assigned by Spotware Technologies LLC, issued Sep Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 15

17 13. US Patent , Graphical user interface having contextual menus, Invented by Gourdol et al., assigned by Apple computer, Dec US Patent , Graphical user interface providing consistent behavior for the dragging and dropping of content objects, Invented by Celik, assigned by Apple Computer Inc., issued Mar US Patent , Easy method of dragging pull-down menu items onto a toolbar, Invented by Mandt, assigned by IBM, Sep 2003 Other references: 16. Umakant Mishra, Improving Graphical User Interface, First Edition, 2009, Umakant Mishra, TRIZ Principles for Information Technology, Revised Edition, 2010, Umakant Mishra Solving Software Contradictions by using TRIZ, Book Under Publication 19. Umakant Mishra, The Revised 40 Principles for Software Inventions, available at US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) site, About the author After working for more than 18 years in various fields of IT in different organizations Umakant is currently carrying out independent research on TRIZ and IT since He last worked as Director and Chief Technology Officer ( ) in CREAX Information Technologies (Bangalore). Before that he worked as IS/IT manager ( ) for ActionAid India (Bangalore). Umakant is a Master in Philosophy (MA), Master in Business Administration (MBA), Bachelor in Law and Logic (LLB), Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE+I), Certified Novel Engineer (CNE), Master Certified Novell Engineer (MCNE), Certified Intranet Manager (CIM), Certified Internet Professional (CIP), Certified Software Test Manager (CSTM) and holds many other global IT certifications. Umakant has authored the books "TRIZ Principles for Information Technology", Improving Graphical User Interface using TRIZ, Using TRIZ for Anti-Virus Development etc. and working on a book on Management Information Systems. Many of his articles are available in SSRN elibrary ( bepress ( Arxiv ( etc. More about Umakant is available at Demonstrating Contradictions in a GUI, by Umakant Mishra 16