Do what I mean

When we hear about the user interface talks, one theme always sticks out 'Do what I mean'.

We expect our gadgets, our software programs to do what we mean and not what we tell them. But this is a challenging problem. The means by which we can "tell" our gadgets what we want, are not sufficient to convey them what we "mean". This is the gap between syntax and semantics.

The innovations in User Interface strive to bridge this gap. Ipod is an excellent example of such innovation. The advances in the desktop GUI is another.

What is it that makes it so hard a problem? Or why is this a problem at all? Here are my 2 cents on this topic, in context of my Ipod.

Why is ipod's interface more user friendly than previous music players?
Let us first see, what we want a music player to do? - play a song, go ahead/backwards one song, forward/rewind a song, browse the playlist. Each of these tasks are traditionally placed on buttons. Buttons are perhaps the only input mediums we engineers would imagine an electronic gadget to have. This is because the implementation of the music player (or any other electronic device) has been based on binary switch logic. But that is not what a user would expect. So the designers of the ipod used a wheel to hide the digital implementation to serve the analog semantics. Browsing should be as smooth a process as moving your finger is. The song skipping is however a digital command and a switch should suffice for that, so clicking the same wheel will serve the purpose.

Easiness is another aspect of ipod's UI. An interface should be intuitive. A gadget should have advanced features, but the user interface should serve only the most intuitive purpose first. So for advanced users few more controls could be stuck on the device. But that would be so ugly. Imagine having Up/Down buttons, Settings button, a button to turn on the backlight of ipod. Apple's solution to this problem is ingenious - Instead of providing these additional controls in space, hide them in time! You use the same buttons that you use for song playing, but for different length of time and voila! you uncovered an advanced feature of your ipod. It sounds so obviously 'intuitive'! Then why hasn't every gadget done this. That is because, bridging this gap between syntax and semantics requires fine engineering of the product. Time multiplexing several functions on a single hardware switch, needs carefully written code. The polling techniques to read the switch, the contraints on the size of the code - all need ace engineering. Only then, the meaning that the user expects gets conveyed to the gadget.

I've more thoughts on this issue, but 'll save them for some time in future. Till then, any comments are welcome.