Designing interactive interfaces: theoretical consideration of the complexity of standards and guidelines, and the difference between evolving and formalised systems

摘要

To design an interactive interface with communicative ability is a highly constrained, complex and difficult task. In the design process, a designer has to consider numerous principles, standards, and guidelines. It is impossible for a human being to consciously keep track of the interconnections between so many variables, or to calculate all the consequences that may emerge from putting all of the principles, standards, and guidelines together. This is often demonstrated in interaction with complex systems such as control rooms, surveillance systems, aeroplanes, especially when they display states (patterns) with which the user is not familiar. This is where the problems start. No artefact can display on its interface what has not been determined beforehand. If they could, it would mean that designers had the ability to predict all possible future states that the artefact may exhibit. As many complex artefacts function in a dynamic environment, it is simply impossible. There are two reasons why it is impossible to predict future states of a complex system, and hence to design communicative interfaces in an intelligible way. The first concerns the relationship between consciousness and the five omnipresent mental factors: contact, feeling, discernment, intention and attention. Secondly we note the essential difference between evolving and formalised communication systems: formalised systems are incapable of handling proliferating complexity, whereas proliferating complexity is a prerequisite for human development. Even though people appreciate natural complexity, which allows them to select and integrate information freely, they have difficulties in handling formalised complexity, which requires particular kinds of experience and logic. Hence, it is important to start a discussion about what kinds of formalised systems we should design. If we want to control systems, then they cannot be too complex, as we have difficulties coping with formalised complexity. If we want to create truly flexible systems, then we have to skip the control requirement.