In my last post I proposed a definition for Natural User Interface that is as follows:
A Natural User Interface is a human-computer interface that models aspects of direct interactions between people and their natural environment.
It took me months to arrive at a definition of NUI that I'm comfortable with and within 48 hours of proposing a definition I'm already questioning its validity. Why? It's that pesky term "natural" that just keeps messing things up. In the definition I proposed, I was careful to place the context of "natural" as it relates to the users own environment. What I meant by "their natural environment" was the objects and processes by which the user is already familiar - only I did a really poor job of expressing that idea.
In an interview Bill Buxton (see video below) does a much better job of explaining what I was trying to say. Essentially he tells us that what is "natural" depends on what is already familiar to the user and what is also appropriate at the moment the user is interacting with the system.
To drive home that point of "appropriate" Buxton makes the excellent point that using a keyboard and a mouse is probably the most natural (not to mention efficient) method of interfacing with a computer when you want to write an article or a blog or a book or a letter. This is really an important point.
I'm most comfortable writing with QWERTY keyboard. In fact, I avoid using a pencil when ever possible because its not nearly as efficient for me. I also cannot imagine using a speech-to-text system for writing. Not only does speech-to-text pretty much suck, even if it was 100% accurate I would still prefer to use a keyboard. I think better with a keyboard than when I'm talking. So, in my case, what is the most natural UI for writing is a keyboard and mouse. I don't think that I'm alone.
What Bill Buxton emphasizes is that a NUI must leverage skills that people already have - whether they are innate or learned. For example, driving a car is not an innate skill, it's a learned skill. An interface that can leverage aspects of the controls for an automobile will be more familiar and more appropriate in some contexts than a gestural UI or a speech UI.
Another point that Bill Buxton makes is that NUIs should be multi-channel which is kind of like being multi-modal. A multi-modal interface is one that offers different mechanisms for interacting with the computer which may be combined. For example, you might type on a laptop, use its touch screen, or voice controls depending on what you want to accomplish. You may use some modes simultaneously (touch and speech) or individually depending on the context. I'll use speech to make phone calls when I'm in the car by myself via my iPhone's voice dialing feature, but I'll use the touch screen when I'm around people I don't know. Not only is my UI multi-modal, its multi-channel. I can use different combinations of UI modes to accomplish the same task.
Bill Buxton makes an off the cuff statement that we should perhaps use the term "Appropriate User Interface" rather than "Natural User Interface" and that, I think, is the bedrock of the point of what he is trying to get a across. While "Appropriate User Interface" seems far more accurate description of the new UI paradigm, its "Natural User Interface" that's obtained traction as a term. The question is, what do we mean by "Natural"?
Given the importance of appropriateness perhaps that should be in the definition of NUI. The following is an alternative definition of NUI. I don't know which definition is best, the first one I proposed or this second one, but perhaps together they can help us find the best definition.
A Natural User Interfaces is a human-computer interface that leverages skills already familiar to the user that are most appropriate to the context of the interaction.
To be perfectly honest I was a little disappointed at the lack of discussion surrounding my first attempt to define NUI. Hopefully, some more discussion will occur around this post.
The following video is really important for anyone interested in NUI. Bill Buxton is, in my opinion, one of the foremost authorities on the subject. He's been researching multi-touch, speech, and many other aspects of human-computer interfaces for 30 years. The guy knows what he's talking about.
Btw - Josh Blake has taken notes on the interview which I found to be very useful. Buxton says so many important things that you need to listen to the interview a couple times and review Josh's notes to really appreciate it.
UPDATE: January 22, 2010
I've come up with my final definition of NUI which you can find at this post.
2 comments:
I also believe you have to relate 'natural' to the intended audience of your user interface. So you can say that a WIMP interface may be natural to people that are already familiar with it.
This may lead to unnatural interfaces for people that don't belong to the intended users.
One extreme example of how specialization can lead to unusual natural interfaces is Pat Metheny playing multiple instruments only by guitar. For him the guitar is the NUI for playing playing piano! See http://www.patmetheny.com/orchestrioninfo/
One may argue that the intended audience for a natural user interface should be as broad as possible. Therefore using interactions that most people are used to in life as a building block (touch, speech, body movements) for a NUI will guarantee the broadest possible audience.
The role of a NUI designer is to make the appropriate mapping of natural interactions in life to interactions in the UI. If that is done right the UI turns into a NUI.
@rosme
You make a number of excellent points. I agree that the audience needs to be broader. I'm still wondering, however, which definition is more appropriate or if something else entirely is needed.
Post a Comment