This week, I was working on an interactive widget. Our team was deeply familiar with the subject matter and attempting to simplify complex information with a bit of interaction. The design made sense to us, but I worried that users wouldn’t find our widget to be obvious. A few informal usability tests with friends around the office quickly revealed that users unfamiliar with the subject matter found our widget confusing.
The design was factually accurate, complete, and aesthetically pleasing. So what gives?
Why users overlook the seemingly obvious
The cognitive psychology behind this phenomenon is illustrated in the classic Invisible Gorilla study, which rounded the ‘net about 10 years ago. It was illustrated again in the follow-up, entitled Monkey Business.
A July 13, 2010 piece published by the Christian Sciene Monitor entitled Invisible Gorilla test returns, showing that we’re still not paying attention discusses the outcome of this study.
“These confounding findings from cognitive psychologists Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris detailed in a 1999 study revealed how people can focus so hard on something that they become blind to the unexpected, even when staring right at it. When one develops “inattentional blindness,” as this effect is called, it becomes easy to miss details when one is not looking out for them.
“‘Although people do still try to rationalize why they missed the gorilla, it’s hard to explain such a failure of awareness without confronting the possibility that we are aware of far less of our world than we think,’ Simons told LiveScience.”
The Invisible Gorilla study is not the only one that has proved this phenomenon. A 2005 book called Animals in Translation discusses a flight simulation experiment that NASA conducted which revealed that trained pilots (who were familiar with landing) were more likely to overlook distractions on the runway than untrained pilots, who may have been more observative because they didn’t know what to expect on a typical landing.
What does inattentional blindness mean for design?
Usability practitioners testify that web browsers rank near the height of inattentiveness – scanning, scrolling and clicking about like ADD patients who’ve forgotten our Ritalin.
As designers, we cannot forget how detached some users will be. Simplicity and self-evidence are difficult to achieve, but they’re standards for which we must strive. When in doubt, five-second tests can help us identify what users take away from our designs.
Another possibility is that for experiences which require absolute focus, it might make sense to break from convention – thus reducing familiarity and increasing user attentiveness. Of course, breaking from convention poses its own risks which must be weighed against its advantages.
Most importantly, if you’re ever looking to convince a content-loving stakeholder of WHY you must continue streamlining and simplifying, look no further than the classic Invisible Gorilla video on YouTube.
If you found this post, please post a comment. Also, you might want to check out What Makes Them Click, a blog which applies psychology to how people think, work, and relate.
_______________
ADDED ON JULY 18, 2010: After posting this topic on Saturday, July 17 – I heard from Dan Simons, one of the researchers behind the Invisible Gorilla study featured above. Daniel Simons is a Professor at the University of Illinois who earned his Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from Cornell University. Dan wrote:
In case you’re interested, Chris Chabris and I have a new book out called “The Invisible Gorilla” that goes into a lot of depth about the reasons for these failures of awareness and their practical implications (we discuss the same studies mentioned by Temple Grandin in her book, but with more focus on how they relate toperception, attention, and awareness). You can read more about thebook at www.theinvisiblegorilla.com.
See also
Great point. Have you read “Why We Buy: The Science of Selling” by Paco Underhill? That was the book that first sparked my interest in usability and interaction design, and I specifically recall the part where he talked about the only store in a shopping area which allowed shoppers to use the restrooms. They had placed a barrage of signage at the entrance of a store to capture the attention of the foot traffic. It’s not surprising that, when they faced the signage to where users would see it as they left the restroom, they saw a dramatic uptick in response to their signage when they faced it to where users would see it as they left the restroom.
I might not be getting the details right, but the design principle has since been known to me as the “let them pee” principle. Probably just another take on your “right time, right place” design guideline.
Nice post, Erin. Related to selective attention and inattentional blindness is “Task Focused Disregard” or TFD. With TFD, task-focused users, especially those under pressure and in a hurry — typical of many work environments, disregard (unconsciously) elements of an interface not directly connected with their current task.
Task Focused Disregard is strong when a user begins their task: users often begin their primary task(s) from a home or landing page, and so task-focused disregard can be prevalent on these pages. This can make home/landing pages the wrong place, wrong time for making existing users aware of additional functionality. Rather, we need to use “Right Place, Right Time Design” (see @persuasiveux on Twitter for more on this and other aspects of designing for engagement).