Sam - tagged with phd

Security Lens: The Patterns

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:05:00 +0200

The Security Lens represents a ‘security’ worldview, i.e. that undesired user behaviour is something to deter and/or prevent though ‘countermeasures’ designed into products, systems and environments, both physically and online, with examples such as digital rights management.

From a designer’s point of view, this can be an ‘unfriendly’ - and in some circumstances unethical - view to take, effectively treating users as ‘guilty until proven innocent’. However, thinking more closely about the patterns, it’s possible to think of ways that they could be applied to help users control their own habits or behaviour for their own benefit - encouraging exercise, reducing energy use, and so on.

Surveillance “What do I do when other people might be watching?”

■ If people think others can see what they’re doing, they often change their behaviour in response, through guilt, fear of censure, embarrassment or another mechanism

■ Techniques range from monitoring users’ actions with reporting to authorities, to simpler ‘natural surveillance’, where the layout of an area allows everyone to see what each other is doing. Statistics making public details about users’ contributions to a fund might fit in here too. Surveillance can benefit the user where monitoring allows a desired intervention, e.g. a fall alarm for the elderly

Examples: The ubiquitous CCTV—or the threat of it—and security lighting, are both intended to influence user behaviour, in terms of being a deterrent to crime in the first place

This pattern is about constraining user behaviour.

Atmospherics “I can’t hang around here with that racket going on”

■ Use (or removal) of ambient sensory effects (sound, light, smell, taste, etc) to influence user behaviour

■ Atmospherics can be ‘discriminatory’, i.e. targeted at particular classes of users, based on some characteristic enabling them to be singled out - such as the pink lights supposed to make teenagers with acne too embarrassed to hang around - or ‘blanket’, i.e. targeted at all users, e.g. Bitrex, a bitter substance, used to discourage drinking weedkiller or biting your nails.

Examples: Two examples of ‘discriminatory’ atmospherics: the Mosquito emits a 17.4 kHz tone to drive away young people from public places; blue lighting is used in some public toilets to discourage drug injection by making veins difficult to see This pattern is mainly about constraining user behaviour… but can also motivate a user, e.g. pleasant sensations such as the fresh bread smell used in supermarkets can encourage purchases. Threat of damage “That’s going to hurt”

■ It’s not nice, but the threat of damage (or injury) lies behind many measures designed to influence behaviour, from tyre damage spikes to barbed wire, electric fences, shards of glass cemented into the top of walls, and so on.

■ In some cases the threat alone is hoped to be enough to dissuade particular behaviours; in others, it’s expected that some mild injury or discomfort will occur but put people off doing it again. Warnings are often used (and may be legally required), but this is not always the case.

Example: Various kinds of ’skate stopper’ in public places, such as this so-called pig ear are designed to cause damage to skateboards (and injury to skateboarders) to dissuade them from skating an area.

What you have “Insert passcard now”

■ ‘What you have’ relies on a user possessing a certain tool or device to enable functionality or gain access.

■ Aside from the obvious (keys, passcards, dongles and so on), there are, for example, specialised screwdrivers for security screws, which rely (largely unsuccessfully) on the distribution channels being kept private. Money itself could be seen as an example of this, especially where it’s intentionally restricted to influence behaviour (e.g. giving children a certain amount of pocket money to limit what they can buy.)

Example: When they’re actually checked, rail or other travel tickets restrict journeys to people who have the right ticket What you know or can do “Enter password”

■ ‘What you know or can do’ relies on the capabilities of users - some information or ability which only a subset of users can provide. The most obvious examples are passwords and exams (e.g. driving tests) - testing users’ knowledge / understanding before ‘allowing’ them to perform some behaviour. Often one capability stands as a proxy for another, e.g. CAPTCHAs separating humans from automated bots.

■ These are often interlocks - e.g. breathalyser interlocks on car ignitions, or, one stage further, the ‘puzzle’ interlocks tested during the 1970s, where a driver had to complete an electronic puzzle before the car would start, thus (potentially) catching tiredness or drug use as well as intoxication.

Example: Childproof lids on bottles of potentially dangerous substances - such as this weedkiller - help prevent access by children, but can also make it difficult for adults with limited dexterity. Who you are “If the glove fits…”

■ Design based on ‘who you are’ intends to allow or prevent behaviour based on some criteria innate to each individual or group - usually biometric - which can’t be acquired by others.

■ The aim is usually strong denial of access to anyone not authenticated, but there are also cases of primarily self-imposed ‘who you are’ security, such as the Mukurtu system, stamping ‘Confidential’ on documents, and so on.

Example: Fingerprint scanners are becoming increasingly common on computer hardware. What you’ve done “Do 10 minutes more exercise to watch this show”

■ Systems which alter the options available to users based on their current / past behaviour are increasingly easy to imagine as the technology for logging and tracking actions becomes easier to include in products (see also Surveillance). Products which ration people’s use, or require some ‘work’ to achieve a goal, fit in here.

■ These could simply ‘lock out’ someone who has abused/misused a system (as happens with various anti-spam systems), or, more subtly, could divide users into classes based on their previous behaviour and provide different levels of functionality in the future.

Example: Gillian Swan’s Square Eyes restricts children’s TV viewing time based on the amount of exercise they do (measured by these special insoles) Where you are “This function is disabled for your current location”

■ ‘Where you are’ security selectively restricts or allows a user functions based on a user’s location

■ Examples include buildings intended to have no mobile phone reception (perhaps ‘for security reasons’, or maybe for the benefit of other users, e.g. in a cinema), and IP address geographic filtering, where website users identified as being in different countries are given access to different content.

Example: Some supermarket trolleys have devices fitted to lock the wheels, mechanically or electronically when taken outside a defined area. Less high-tech versions have also been used!

Photos/screenshots by Dan Lockton except fingerprint scanner by Josh Bancroft and Square Eyes photo from Brunel University press office.

dan@danlockton.co.uk

Visual Lens: The Patterns

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:04:00 +0200

The Visual Lens combines ideas from product semantics, semiotics, ecological psychology and Gestalt psychology about how users perceive patterns and meanings as they interact with the systems around them. These techniques are often applied by interaction designers without necessarily considering how they can influence user behaviour.

Prominence & visibility “You can’t miss it” ■ Design certain elements so they’re more prominent, obvious, memorable or visible than others, to direct users’ attention towards them, making it easier for users to pick up the message intended, or pick the ‘best’ options from a set of choices

■ Simple prominence is one of the most basic design principles for influencing user behaviour, but visibility can also include using transparency strategically as part of a system—drawing users’ attention to elements which would otherwise be hidden

Examples: The most important warning signs should be the most prominent—if a user only has time to take in one message, it should be the one that matters the most (above)

A Dyson vacuum’s transparent chamber makes forgetting to empty it unlikely, thus keeping the effectiveness of the cleaner high and improving user satisfaction (below)

This pattern is about enabling user behaviour: making it easier to make certain choices Metaphors “This reminds me of one of those, so I expect it works that way too” ■ Use design elements from a context the user understands in a new system, to imply how it should be used; make it easy for users to understand a new system in terms they already understand

■ There’s a danger of oversimplification, or misleading users about the consequences of actions, if metaphor use is taken to extremes; it can also trap users in old behaviour patterns

Examples: Everyday software interfaces (above and below left) combine hundreds of metaphors, from the ‘desktop’, ‘folders’ and ‘trash/recycle bin’ themselves to the icons used for graphics functions such as zoom (magnifying glass), eyedropper and so on. Ford’s SmartGauge (below right) uses ‘leaves’ to represent efficiency of a user’s driving style

Metaphors are mainly about enabling user behaviour… but can also motivate a user to ‘know’ by increasing mindful understanding of how best to use a system.

Perceived affordances “Looks like you use it this way…” ■ Perceived affordances are what it looks like we can do with something. A button looks like we should push it; a door with a handle looks like we should pull it, whereas a door with a plate looks like we should push it. This is fundamental to interaction design, and in influencing user behaviour, since the actions a design ’suggests’ to a user will probably be carried out. (There may be hidden affordances too.)

■ Related ideas include mappings - laying out controls so they relate intuitively to the functions they control - and perceived constraints, what users perceive they can’t do with something.

Example: Where a door has a handle, we assume we should pull it. When this isn’t the case, usability suffers!

Implied sequences “Easy as 1,2,3…” ■ Presenting items in an implied sequence suggests to users that they should be used / experienced in order. Remember that in while in western countries, our reading direction leads us to assume sequences go left-to-right, in other cultures right-to-left may be the norm, e.g. this Hebrew version of the Mozilla browser with right-facing “back” arrow and left-facing “forward” arrow.

■ The sequence of choices can also suggest levels of priority / hierarchy - there’s a small advantage for candidates who are listed first on a ballot paper [PDF]. The order in which options are revealed can also be important, both in terms of what people remember and how they make comparisons

Example: Rows of switches such as these can suggest a sequential form of operation

Possibility trees “What route should I take?” ■ Possibility trees show users what routes they can follow to achieve a goal, or what results different behaviours can lead to. The way these are presented, via instructions, an interface, or even signage or maps - wayfinding (e.g. these Transport for London studies) - can influence the choices users make. .

■ They can be used strategically: showing users the routes that planners would prefer them to take, or the actions that designers would like users to take.

Example: Once people have become used to using a highly stylised map to plan journeys, such as the London Underground map here, it can affect perceptions of places’ location in real life. For example, Willesden Junction and North Acton stations are a 10-15 minute walk apart, but the distortion introduced by the map suggests that the distance is much further, which in turn can influence the transport choices people make.

Watermarking “Taking (or showing) ownership” ■ In this context, watermarking means making the ownership (or background) of something evident to users. If people feel they own a device, through some kind of personalisation or acknowledgement that it’s theirs, they will often use it differently to when it seems like it belongs to someone else.

■ One application of this to influencing behaviour is to make it clear or obvious that some shared resources belong to everyone, or to the community, rather than no-one in particular.

Example: A Gloucestershire shopkeeper has taken to writing customers’ names on the packaging of snacks they buy, to encourage them not to litter by ‘taking ownership’ - it has apparently been especially successful with children.

Proximity & similarity “Those look like they go together” ■ Users will tend to perceive that design elements (buttons, controls etc) which look similar, or are arranged together, will have similar functions or work together as a group (Gestalt proximity and similarity).

■ This can be used strategically to influence user behaviour as a kind of framing technique: group functions that you want users to perceive as going together, or give the controls similar shapes or colours. Likewise, introducing deliberate discontinuity or separation between elements can lead users to treat them very differently.

Example: Bringing light switches together like this allows them all to be switched off at once more easily when leaving a room, but can work against the intuitive mapping linking each switch to the lights it controls.

Colour & contrast “I simply chose the one that stood out the most” ■ Use colour and visual contrast to influence users’ perceptions and moods, suggest associations between particular behaviours and outcomes, and cause users to notice important elements or information (remembering that colour-blindness affects many millions of users, and so has implications for designers)

■ While some research shows that certain colours can have direct effects on behaviour in certain situations (e.g. the colour of pills), the evidence in general is weaker than is sometimes implied. Nevertheless, clever use of colour can help, support and guide user decision-making and so influence behaviour.

Example: Baker-Miller Pink or “drunk-tank pink” was developed through trials in prisons where painting a cell this colour was found, in certain circumstances, to reduce inmates’ aggression.

Photos/screenshots by Dan Lockton except Dyson by Skylarprimm, toggle switches by trancedmoogle, Ford Smartgauge from Ford promotional material on Jalopnik, shopkeeper writing on packet from BBC News story; London Underground map screenshot from Transport for London website.

dan@danlockton.co.uk

Architectural Lens: The Patterns

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:00:00 +0200

The Architectural Lens draws on techniques used to influence user behaviour in architecture, urban planning and related disciplines such as traffic management and crime prevention through environmental design (see also the Security lens). While the techniques have been developed in the built environment, many of the ideas can also be applied in interaction and product design, even in software or services; they are effectively about using the structure of systems to influence behaviour.

Positioning & layout “I wonder why they laid it out like that” ■ Arrange elements to affect how people use them—it can involve simply positioning elements (functions, buttons, etc) in sequence, hiding elements so they are only available for interaction in that sequence, or designing paths to converge or diverge intentionally ■ The layouts of supermarkets, shopping malls and offices can influence the paths taken by users, exposing them to the shelves, shops and colleagues in a strategic order or hierarchy

Examples: In this service station bathroom (above), the mirrors have been moved from behind the sinks to an intentionally awkward position near the door, so users don’t spend too long in front of them. See this discussion by Meagan Call. Chicane layouts (below) force drivers to yield priority to oncoming traffic, reducing speeds.

This pattern is mainly about constraining user behaviour… but can also enable a user by making it easier to use/experience things in the ‘right’ order.

Material properties “It’s much more comfortable if you use it this way rather than that way” ■ Use materials individually or in combination, chosen for particular properties which influence or affect user behaviour—e.g. comfortable chairs to encourage visitors to sit down, uncomfortable café seating to discourage long stays ■ A change in properties, such as the sudden roughness of rumble strips on the road, can signal to a user that a change in behaviour is appropriate

Examples: Rough-textured paving (above) can act as a subtle barrier between the cycle and pedestrian tracks: stray over the line on a bike and you’ll feel it. This bench on the Paris Métro (below) is intentionally too uncomfortable to act as anything other than a very temporary perch: it prevents sleeping or loitering.

This pattern is mainly about constraining user behaviour… but can also motivate a user, e.g. by ‘rewarding’ certain behaviour with comfort

Segmentation & spacing “One at a time, please” ■ Break up a system into multiple elements, spaced strategically to influence how a user can interact with them ■ Often used so users can interact with only one element at a time, or to make sure they share a system with others. Removing spacing, or integrating segmented elements, can also be used intentionally

Example: These individual seats replace a bench on the Paris Métro - meaning that someone cannot lie down or occupy more than one.

Orientation “Slanty design” ■ Use angled elements in a system to influence interaction, e.g. by making it easier or more difficult for some actions to occur than others. Also known as ’slanty design’ (Russell Beale). ■ Can also be used to ‘funnel’ users, e.g. staggered pedestrian crossings making sure users face oncoming traffic

Example: Sloping lids on cigarette bins to discourage placing of litter on top

Removal “You can’t use it if it isn’t there” ■ Simply remove system elements or cues which allow or encourage particular behaviours you don’t want to happen, or which would allow a user to proceed without thinking ■ Can also increase the transparency of a system, making it easier for users to see the consequences of their (and others’) actions

Example: The ‘naked roads’/’shared space’ approach of removing road markings and signage to influence more careful driving in urban areas, e.g. here at Seven Dials near Covent Garden in London

Movement & oscillation “It’s brought right in front of you” ■ Dynamic system elements which move to guide users through a process or present things/functions to users in the order they should experience them - e.g. a conveyor belt in a factory or sushi bar ■ Can also be used to discourage users loitering, or blocking others’ paths, e.g. in a popular museum exhibit

Example: A moving walkway (or an escalator), aside from making it easier for pedestrians to get about, also prevents them blocking the path of others

Photos by Dan Lockton, except service station bathroom by Meagan Call, cigarette bin from a printed version of the New Pig ‘pigalog’, and Seven Dials photo by Cheedarcheez, used under a Creative Commons by-nc-nd licence.

What sort of behaviour?

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:59:00 +0200

The diﬀerent patterns (initially just those featured on the poster) have each been given a badge (or two) showing whether they have the eﬀect of enabling, motivating, or constraining user behaviour: Enabling behaviour

Enabling ‘desirable’ behaviour by making it easier for the user than the alternatives Motivating behaviour

Motivating users to change behaviour by education, incentives and changing attitudes Constraining behaviour

Constraining users to ‘desirable’ behaviour by making alternatives diﬃcult or impossible This way of classifying the patterns can be useful to think about when you’re coming up with concepts and evaluating them. What are you trying to achieve in terms of inﬂuencing behaviour? How would you react, as a user, faced with the design? Would it inﬂuence your behaviour? Why? Much work in Persuasive Technology has taken the approach of motivating behaviour, with attitude change usually a precursor, but BJ Fogg’s reduction and tunnelling (Fogg, 2003) are arguably also about enabling particular behaviours by making them simpler (see also Maeda, 2006). Buckminster Fuller’s ‘trimtab’ concept—“modify[ing] the environment in such a way as to get man moving in preferred directions” (Krausse & Lichtenstein, 2001)—also accords with the enabling approach and provides a link to the wider field of design for social benefit. Human factors strategies aimed at influencing behaviour in a health and safety context often employ a constraining approach. The approach used in practice—and hence the patterns and concepts chosen for further development—may, of course, be dictated by the client or other stakeholders rather than being the designer’s decision. P.S. If you can come up with better icons (the ‘Constraining’ one does look rather intestinal), or your own classifications, please do let us know in the comments below…

Next: the patterns

Architectural lens

Errorproofing lens

Persuasive lens

Visual lens

Cognitive lens

Security lens

The Design with Intent Toolkit v.0.9

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:58:00 +0200

■ How to influence user behaviour ■ 12 inspirational design patterns in poster form (plus 35 more) ■ Grouped into 6 ‘lenses’ giving different perspectives

Download the poster [PDF, 1.3MB] - now also includes A4 pages for each lens, for easier printing Start with the problem You have a product, service or environment—a system—where users’ behaviour is important to it working properly (safely, eﬃciently), so ideally you’d like people to use it in a certain way. Or maybe you have a system where it would be desirable to alter the way that people use it, to improve things for users, the people around them, or society as a whole. How can you modify the design, or redesign the system, to achieve this: to inﬂuence, or change users’ behaviour? The design patterns The Design with Intent Toolkit aims to help designers faced with ‘design for behaviour change’ briefs. The poster* [PDF] features 12 design patterns which recur across design ﬁelds (interaction, products, architecture), and there are also 35 more detailed here on the website. Some of the names will be unfamiliar, but we hope the patterns and examples will be understandable, and inspire your own concepts. Think about how you might apply the ideas to your brief, and what could work given what you know about the problem. If you get stuck, try combining ideas from diﬀerent patterns: many real examples can be thought of as using two or more patterns. The patterns are grouped into six ‘lenses’, each oﬀering a diﬀerent worldview on design and behaviour. The lenses allow you to ask “How might someone else approach the problem?” and ought to help you think outside your initial perspective (or your client’s):

Architectural lens

Positioning & layout Material properties Segmentation & spacing Orientation Removal Movement & oscillation

Errorproofing lens

Defaults Interlock Lock-in & lock-out Extra step Specialised affordances Partial self-correction Portions Conditional warnings

Persuasive lens

Self-monitoring Kairos Reduction Tailoring Tunnelling Feedback through form Simulation & feedforward Operant conditioning Respondent conditioning Computers as social actors

Visual lens

Prominence & visibility Metaphors Perceived affordances Implied sequences Possibility trees Watermarking Proximity & similarity Colour & contrast

Cognitive lens

Social proof Framing Reciprocation Commitment and consistency Affective engagement Authority Scarcity

Security lens

Surveillance Atmospherics Threat of damage What you have What you know or can do Who you are What you’ve done Where you are

What sort of behaviour are you trying to achieve?

See the next page… *Lockton, D., Harrison, D.J., Stanton, N.A. Design for Behaviour Change: The Design with Intent Toolkit v.0.9, Uxbridge: Brunel University 2009 (ISBN 978-1-902316-6-1 print; 978-1-902316-63-5 eBook), http://www.designwithintent.co.uk