No to NoUI

Posted on 13 March 2013 in Interaction design, Ubicomp

Invisible-design

The best design is invisible‘ is the interaction design phrase of the moment. The images above are from my ever-expanding collection of quotes about how design and technology will ‘disappear‘, become ‘invisible‘ or how the ‘best interface is no interface‘.

The Verge has recently given both Oliver Reichenstein and Golden Krishna a platform to talk about this. This has spawned manifestos, films, talks, books, #NoUI hashtags and some debates about what it might mean. I’ll call this cluster of things ‘invisible design’.

I agree with some of the reasons driving this movement; that design’s current infatuation with touchscreens is really problematic. I’ve spent the last eight years rallying against glowing rectangles, studying our obsession with screens and the ways in which this has become a cultural phenomena. In response I have been researching and inventing interfaces for taking interaction out from under the glass.

But I also take issue with much of the thinking for a few reasons that I’ll outline below.

1. Invisible design propagates the myth of immateriality

We already have plenty of thinking that celebrates the invisibility and seamlessness of technology. We are overloaded with childish mythologies like ‘the cloud’; a soft, fuzzy metaphor for enormous infrastructural projects of undersea cables and power-hungry data farms. This mythology can be harmful and is often just plain wrong. Networks go down, hard disks fail, sensors fail to sense, processors overheat and batteries die.

Computing systems are suffused through and through with the constraints of their materiality. – Jean-François Blanchette

Invisible design propogates the myth that technology will ‘disappear’ or ‘just get out of the way’ rather than addressing the qualities of interface technologies that can make them difficult or delightful.

Intentionally hiding the phenomena and materiality of interfaces, smoothing over the natural edges, seams and transitions that constitute all technical systems, entails a loss of understanding and agency for both designers and users of computing. Lack of understanding leads to uncertainty and folk-theories that hinder our ability to use technical systems, and clouds the critique of technological developments.

As systems increasingly record our personal activity and data, invisibility is exactly the wrong model.

By removing our knowledge of the glue that holds the systems that make up the infrastructure together, it becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, to begin to understand how we are constructed as subjects, what types of systems are brought into place (legal, technical, social, etc.) and where the possibilities for transformation exist. – Matt Ratto (2007)

In other words, as both users and designers of interface technology, we are disenfranchised by the concepts of invisibility and disappearance.

2. Invisible design falls into the natural/intuitive trap

The movement tells us to ‘embrace natural processes’ and talks about the ‘incredibly intuitive’ Mercedes car interface. This language is a trap (we should ban the use of natural and intuitive btw) that doesn’t give us any insight into how complex products might actually become simple or familiar.

Invisible design leads us towards the horrors of Reality Clippy. Does my refrigerator light really go off? Why was my car unlocked this morning? How did my phone go silent all of a sudden? Without highly legible systems for managing and understanding all of this ‘smartness’ we are going to get very lost and highly frustrated. The tricky business of push notifications and the Facebook privacy train wreck is just the tip of the iceberg.

The example of the Nest thermostat invisibly ‘learning’ your habits to control your home temperature is a good one. But the Nest has a highly visible interface that reassures you as to its status, tells you when it is learning, and a large dial for adjusting temperature. Beautiful, legible microinteractions. A Nest without these visual and direct manipulation interfaces would be useless, uncanny and frustrating. Nest wants UI.

The discussion around invisible design often talks about using sensors and tangible interfaces instead of visual interfaces. But these systems are not inherently simpler or more familiar. They have their own material qualities with edges and ‘grain’ that need to be understood and learnt. Their literal invisibility can cause confusion, even fear, and they often increase unpredictability and failure.

In our work with interface technologies such as RFID and computer vision, we’ve discovered that it takes a lot of work to make sense of the technologies as design materials. So it’s not useful to say that UI is ‘disappearing’ into sensing, algorithms and tangible interfaces, when we don’t fully understand them as UI yet.

3. Invisible design ignores interface culture

Interfaces are the dominant cultural form of our time. So much of contemporary culture takes place through interfaces and inside UI. Interfaces are part of cultural expression and participation, skeuomorphism is evidence that interfaces are more than chrome around content, and more than tools to solve problems. To declare interfaces ‘invisible’ is to deny them a cultural form or medium. Could we say ‘the best TV is no TV’, the ‘best typography is no typography’ or ‘the best buildings are no architecture’?

Much of our work at BERG is not just about solving problems, but about cultural invention:

We’re not interested in this idea of the invisible technology in a modernist sense. Tech won’t be visible but only if it’s embedded into the culture that it exists within. By foregrounding the culture, you background the technology. It’s the difference between grinding your way through menus on an old Nokia, trying to do something very simple, and inhabiting the bright bouncy bubbly universe of iOS. The technology is there, of course, but it’s effectively invisible as the culture is foregrounded.” – Jack Schulze (in Domus 965 / January 2013)

We should be able to simultaneously celebrate the fantastic explosion of diversity in UI, and develop healthy critique around the use of interfaces like touch screens. But by calling for UI to disappear altogether so that things can be more efficient, we remain in the same utilitarian and rational mindset that produces inert technological visions like this, rather than seeing interfaces as part of the cultural landscape.

4. Invisible design ignores design and technology history

The movement ignores at least thirty years of thinking in design and technology. A few examples:

Much of the recent invisible design discussions repeat the thinking in Jared Spool’s ‘Great Designs Should Be Experienced and Not Seen‘ and Donald Norman’s ‘Invisible Computer. But a better reference point would be Don Norman’s earlier book, The design of everyday things, where he instead talks about the ‘problems caused by inadequate attention to visibility’ and supporting or managing our mental models of systems. We need a lot more thinking about our mental models of algorithms in particular.

Adam Greenfield has investigated the social and ethical issues around the development of ubiquitous computing systems, and is particularly concerned by its disappearance:

“Ubiquitous systems must contain provisions for immediate and transparent querying of their ownership, use, and capabilities. Everyware must, in other words, be self-disclosing. Whether such disclosures are made graphically, or otherwise, they ensure that you are empowered to make informed decisions as to the level of exposure you wish to entertain.” – Adam Greenfield (2006)

Some designers have talked about the actual qualities they want from ubiquitous computing interfaces, such as polite, pertinent and pretty:

“The vast quantities of information that personal informatics generate need not only to be clear and understandable to create legibility and literacy in this new world, but I’d argue in this first wave also seductive, in order to encourage play, trial and adoption” Matt Jones & Tom Coates (2008)

Matthew Chalmers has, more than anyone else, revealed the history of seamlessness. Seamlessness is ‘the deliberate “making invisible” of the variety of technical systems, artifacts, individuals and organizations that make up an information infrastructure. This work actively disguises the moments of transition and boundary crossing between these various parts in order to present a solid and seemingly coherent interface to users.’ (Ratto 2007). Although Mark Weiser is often thought of as an advocate of seamless systems, Chalmers found that:

Weiser describes seamlessness as a misleading or misguided concept. In his invited talks to UIST94 and USENIX95 he suggested that making things seamless amounts to making everything the same, reducing components, tools and systems to their ‘lowest common denominator’. He advocated seamful systems (with “beautiful seams”) as a goal. Around Xerox PARC, where many researchers worked on document tools, Weiser used an example of seamful integration of a paint tool and a text editor (Weiser, personal communication). He complained that seamless integration of such tools often meant that the user was forced to use only one of them. One tool would be chosen as primary and the others reduced and simplified to conform to it, or they would be crudely patched together with ugly seams. Seamfully integrated tools would maintain the unique characteristics of each tool, through transformations that retained their individual characteristics. This would let the user brush some characters with the paint tool in some artful way, then use the text editor to ‘search and replace’ some of the brushstroked characters, and then paint over the result with colour washes. Interaction would be seamless as the features of each tool were “literally visible, effectively invisible”. Seamful integration is hard, but the quality of interaction can be improved if we let each tool ‘be itself’. – Matthew Chalmers (2003)

Matt Ratto investigates the darker side of this drive towards invisibility, revealing that seamlessness encourages:

“a particular kind of passivity and lack of engagement between people and their actions and between people and their social and material environment” and that we must “critique the clean, orderly, and homogenous future that is at the heart of these modernist visions” – Matt Ratto (2007)

And Anne Galloway suggests that it is in the seams where the design work can be done:

“Although seamlessness may remain a powerful and effective metaphor to guide particular projects, when it comes to actually getting the work done—and the challenges of having to do it with people who can be very different from each other—then I suggest it is in everyone’s best interests to recognise the importance of seams and scars in marking places where interventions can be made, or where potential can be found and acted upon.” – Anne Galloway (2007)

In interaction design we need to look at the long history of Durrell Bishop‘s work, one of the strongest advocates for self-evident design, whether it is physical or virtual, through his teaching and design practice. Durrell’s ‘Platform 12′ in the RCA Design Products course attempts to see design as:

“a celebration of a model for how things work, where once again we can treat function as beauty, instead of merely treating design as form and image.”

Durrell’s work on the Marble Answering Machine (1992) is a brilliant piece of self-evident design, and remains a touchstone for all interaction design work.

Designers also need to look at the first four chapters of ‘Where the action is‘ by Paul Dourish which give a coherent account of the relationships between human abilities and computer interfaces over the last 50-60 years. Dourish shows how interfaces are not becoming invisible, but how they are increasingly social and tangible.

And finally, from a design perspective, there is a long tradition of making complex products legible and understandable. Industrial designer Konstantin Grcic talks about the relationship between the technologies and the use of an object:

“A machine is beautiful when it’s legible, when its form describes how it works. It isn’t simply a matter of covering the technical components with an outer skin, but finding the correct balance between the architecture of the machine… and an expressive approach that is born out of the idea of interaction with those using the object.” – Konstantin Grcic (2007)

And perhaps more famously, Dieter Rams has always talked of honesty and understanding in his product design practice. Making a product understandable is one of his Ten Principles of “Good Design”.

dieter_rams-10principles-04

This drive for understanding needs to go further than physical form (as it has done at Apple) and start to inform the design of systems and UI.

Towards legible, evident interaction

We must abandon invisibility as a goal for interfaces; it’s misleading, unhelpful and ultimately dishonest. It unleashes so much potential for unusable, harmful and frustrating interfaces, and systems that gradually erode users and designers agency. Invisibility might seem an attractive concept at first glance, but it ignores the real, thorny, difficult issues of designing and using complex interfaces and systems.

We might be better off instead taking our language from typography, and for instance talk about legibility and readability without denying that typography can call attention to itself in beautiful and spectacular ways. Our goal should be to ‘place as much control as possible in the hands of the end-user by making interfaces evident‘.

Of course the interfaces we design may become normalised in use, effectively invisible over time, but that will only happen if we design them to be legible, readable, understandable and to foreground culture over technology. To build trust and confidence in an interface in the first place, enough that it can comfortably recede into the background.

107 Comments

  1. 011 :: on #stacktivism – my #ILIW13 talk | T.H.E.J.A.Y.M.O
    24 April 2013

    [...] the author of Roads to Power: Britain Invents the Infrastructure State :: , Timo Arnall in his No to NoUI piece, Benjamin Bratton and his geopolitics of the cloud and theoretical languge of ‘the [...]

  2. Unmanned Aerial Ecologies: proto-drones, airspace and canaries in the mine | honor harger
    26 April 2013

    [...] It included pieces by practitioners like Timo Arnall, that gave us tangible encounters with the normally invisible technologies which pervade every aspect of our lives, but do so invisibly, and beyond our grasp. That very invisibility carries with it implicit philosophical dangers. As Timo Arnall (2013) has recently eloquently written: [...]

  3. The curse of the invisible interface | ogilvydo.com
    2 May 2013

    [...] cuttings on the notion that “the best design is invisible”. Timo’s long post is worth reading in full, but he raises fundamental questions about the role of interface in our relationship with [...]

  4. UI is visible. Type is visible. | Void
    5 May 2013

    [...] than that. It’s an over-simplistic measure of success that is put far more eloquently than in this post from Timo [...]

  5. You Design What Now?
    6 May 2013

    [...] Timo Arnall, in an article on his blog, “No to NoUI” [...]

  6. UI is visible. Type is visible |
    13 May 2013

    [...] than that. It’s an over-simplistic measure of success that is put far more eloquently than in this post from Timo [...]

  7. Starting the Week in the Digital Age | honor harger
    26 May 2013

    [...] As technology becomes more ubiquitous, our relationship with our devices is becoming ever-more seamless, and our technical infrastructure is becoming ever more invisible. These seamless experiences make technology pleasurable to use, but they also mask the materiality of technology. As Timo Arnall has recently eloquently written (http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui): [...]

  8. No diga interfaz intuitivo, diga interfaz familiar - Error 500
    27 May 2013

    [...] Otra lectura muy recomendable al respecto, No to NoUI: [...]

  9. Instead of “intuitive”, aim for UIs that are familiar, legible, and evident
    28 May 2013

    [...] Interfaces aren’t magic, and we don’t really want them to be. To borrow from Timo Arnall: interfaces are culture. And like any pieces of culture, what they ought to do is simple: they ought to [...]

  10. Cajón semanal de enlaces nº8 | Periferia Digital
    31 May 2013

    [...] “intuitivas” a las  interfaces “familiares. En les mismo post, está ”No to NoUI” de Timo Arnal, donde habla de las interfaces como forma cultural dominante de nuestro [...]

  11. UI is visible. Type is visible. | ZIP STREAM
    2 June 2013

    [...] than that. It’s an over-simplistic measure of success that is put far more eloquently than in this post from Timo [...]

  12. Mime types – Richard Sandford
    10 June 2013

    [...] people in the room to know what you’re doing? Is it possible to design politely? This makes Timo Arnall’s “no to no UI” message even more [...]

  13. jeffreyrusso.com » Striking a Balance Between Detail and Abstraction
    16 June 2013

    [...] heavy interface or apparent complexity. Having recently read a couple of interesting antithetical points of view on the topic, I’ve been thinking a lot about how this applies to what I do on a daily [...]

  14. Browse This Awesome Collection Of Sci-Fi InterfacesFeeds | Feeds
    28 June 2013

    [...] filmmaker, and Berg creative director Timo Arnall recently wrote that “interfaces are the dominant cultural form of our time.” So much of how we [...]

  15. Browse This Awesome Collection Of Sci-Fi Interfaces | NYC Real Estate News
    28 June 2013

    [...] filmmaker, and Berg creative director Timo Arnall recently wrote that “interfaces are the dominant cultural form of our time.” So much of how we [...]

  16. 集合了科幻电影界面的Kit FUI网站,展示人机互动的其它可能 _ 业界资讯 _ HTML5工作室
    3 July 2013

    [...] 设计师、电影制作人、Berg的创意总监Timo Arnall最近写道“界面是我们这个时代占统治地位的文化形式”。他认为,我们所体验的现代流行文化有很多都是发生在UI(用户界面)之中或附近。《圣诞老兄》、《刺杀本拉登》、《星际迷航:暗黑无界》等电影中,角色都在与“fantasy user interfaces (FUI,幻想用户界面)”互动。 [...]

  17. NoUI, informed consent and the internet of things | Smethurst
    4 July 2013

    [...] the internet fridge with an iPad strapped to the front I’d be happy. But mostly I agree with Timo Arnall’s No to NoUI post and his point that as both users and designers of interface technology, we are disenfranchised by [...]

  18. The ‘No UI’ Movement Might Be Crazy, But It’s Not Dumb | Evolver.fm
    17 July 2013

    [...] presentation you can watch at the bottom of this post. Then came the backlash, most visibly from No to ‘No UI,’ from Berg creative director Timo Arnall, but also from another Cooper designer, who called [...]

  19. The ‘No UI’ Movement Might Be Crazy, But It’s Not Dumb
    17 July 2013

    [...] presentation you can watch at the bottom of this post. Then came the backlash, most visibly from No to ‘No UI,’ from Berg creative director Timo Arnall, but also from another Cooper designer, who called [...]

  20. What Comes After Click: A Crash Course In Tangible User Interfaces | Gizmodo Australia
    19 July 2013

    [...] tell whether they’re working or if they’re erroring. It’s hard to learn them. As Berg’s Timo Arnall puts it, “literal invisibility can cause confusion, even fear, and they often increase [...]

  21. Something Invisible in the Landscape is Just Landscape | honor harger
    20 July 2013

    [...] – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui [...]

  22. Products that remove small life annoyances
    12 August 2013

    […] work well — really well — they do just that. It’s not that they get out of the way in an invisible UI sense. They are extremely visible, and they consume all your attention while you’re using […]

  23. Invisible UI vs. Visually Beautiful UI | James' Website
    13 August 2013

    […] reading through a very wordy blog as part of the UX Design module, the general gist of what I feel that he is saying is that whilst […]

  24. Week 3 UX – No to NoUI | liseyloodesign
    13 August 2013

    […] thrills just keep coming – tasked with reading the article “No to NoUI” (and trust me, that was a task!) we are asked to discuss our thoughts on said […]

  25. UI Design with a Purpose – Activity 1 | Good Day, Sir
    14 August 2013

    […] No to NoUI – a passionate and subjective article on invisible UI, and, in a nutshell, how it has no place in this world. Having read through the article, I was tasked to consider the differences and similarities between ‘invisible design’ and UI design that is ‘visually beautiful’. With that in mind I must answer the following question – can both meet the goal of great experience when properly balanced? My immediate answer is yes, and seeing as the article was subjective, I’m allowing my reply to feature a few more personal pronouns than usual with a lot of personal opinion behind them. There’s a place for beautiful interfaces, and there’s a place for no interfaces.  The writer of this article is a little too adamant upon the subject, so it could largely be my perversity speaking here, but I think that there is plenty of room for the best interface to be no interface. It all depends on the product, in the end, and who the target market is. […]

  26. “Invisible Design” and its counterpart | Ronn's Website
    14 August 2013

    […] reading this really long but detailed article, I learned about how certain designers believed that “invisible design” is the way to […]

  27. PDXmob» Blog Archive » Designing for Transparency and the Myth of the Modern Interface
    27 August 2013

    […] screens are becoming outdated and to establish preliminary “best practices.” Barring a few notable critiques, the discussions on invisible interfaces have thus far been mostly optimistic—perhaps too […]

  28. NES controller Demonstrating Flat Design | Joseph Ekloff
    29 August 2013

    […] long been talk about getting rid of buttons and having No UI altogether, as well as intelligent arguments against turning people’s world […]

  29. dConstructing The Invisible | honor harger
    9 September 2013

    […] enabling ‘seamless’ interactions between us and our technological devices. But there is a growing critique of this philosophy emerging within both the design and art communities. This was at the heart of Dan Williams‘ talk, Unexpected Item in the […]

  30. Invisibility in the Post-PRISM Age | honor harger
    26 October 2013

    […] (2011): http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing (2012) by Trevor Paglen, co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, at […]

  31. Was mich antreibt | tautoko
    27 October 2013

    […] –Timo Arnall, No to NoUI […]

  32. Seeing in the Dark | honor harger
    8 November 2013

    […] (2011): http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing (2012) by Trevor Paglen, co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, at […]

  33. New Narratives, New Territories | honor harger
    10 November 2013

    […] – The Boston Shuffler- stock-trading algorithm, courtesy of Kevin Slavin: http://videos.liftconference.com/video/1177435/ – Cloud computing survey commissioned by Citrix, August 2012: http://www.citrix.com/lang/English/lp/lp_2328330.asp – The proposed Center for Innovation, Testing and Evaluation, New Mexico: http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/worlds-first-city-robots – Invisible Fields (2011), co-curated by José Luis de Vicente and Honor Harger and at Arts Santa Monica, Barcelona: http://www.lighthouse.org.uk/programme/invisible-fields – 20Hz by Semiconductor (2011): http://www.lighthouse.org.uk/programme/semiconductor-20-hz – Immaterials by Timo Arnall, Einar Sneve Martinussen, Jørn Knutsen, Jack Schulze and Matt Jones, Lighthouse, 2013: http://is.gd/immaterials – Immaterials: Light Painting WiFi by Timo Arnall, Einar Sneve Martinussen, and Jørn Knutsen (2011): http://vimeo.com/20412632 – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui […]

  34. לשיעור הבא: Flow! | הייפרטקסט פוליטי
    10 November 2013

    […] Timo Arnall / No to No UI […]

  35. Cajón semanal de enlaces nº8 | Periferia Digital
    29 November 2013

    […] “intuitivas” a las  interfaces “familiares. En les mismo post, está ”No to NoUI” de Timo Arnal, donde habla de las interfaces como forma cultural dominante de nuestro […]

  36. My Spring 2014 “Digital Archives + Institutional Memory” Studio | Words in Space
    4 December 2013

    […] furthermore, how desirable would “seamless” interaction be in this instance (perhaps it would be helpful and instructive to show some seams?); […]

  37. pComp – No UI?
    20 December 2013

    […] From “No to No UI” […]

  38. Cosa c’è di sbagliato in questo video? | Andrea Nicosia
    30 December 2013

    […] Poi c’è il discorso dell’integrazione seamless, sono critico pure su quello Per le ragioni scritte da uno molto più bravo di me. […]

  39. Ep11: With 100 points of possible failure | Authored Content
    8 January 2014

    […] No to noUI […]

  40. Interface Critique | Words in Space
    10 January 2014

    […] furthermore, how desirable would “seamless” interaction be in this instance (perhaps it would be helpful and instructive to show some seams?); […]

  41. Unmanned Aerial Ecologies | honor harger
    16 January 2014

    […] – shown at Invisible Fields. – Timo Arnall quoted in No to NoUI by Timo Arnall, March 2013: http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui – Geographies of Seeing by Trevor Paglen (2012), co-curated by Honor Harger and Celia Davies, at […]

  42. Interface Critique, Revisited: Thinking About Archival Interfaces | Words in Space
    22 January 2014

    […] furthermore, how desirable would “seamless” interaction be in this instance (perhaps it would be helpful and instructive to show some seams?); […]

  43. Disappearing Technology, Cultural Interfaces | Inter alia
    19 February 2014

    […] the one hand, technology has become invisible to some extent, as foregrounding cultural aspects backgrounds the technology. On the other hand, interaction criticism foregrounds the interaction design through in-depth […]

  44. 对NoUI说不 | 曉生
    21 February 2014

    […] 本文由江南大学设计学院研究生曾丽霞翻译。 原文网址:http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui […]

  45. » SXSW 2013: An Experience Designer’s Take - Team One
    28 February 2014

    […] A Response to the Invisible Interface […]