I just got myself an iPhone. Based on all the hype from my friends and colleagues who have them, I was expecting something approximating magic. I am disappointed. The reasons I got it are really not relevant; let's just say that, compared to my Droid2, I found it to be much less functional in some key areas than my old telephone while adding features that I find to be of little use to me as a business user. Don't get me wrong; the proprietary Apple teleconferencing app is pretty cool; I can use applications I currently own on my iPad without having to purchase them all over again, and the on-screen keyboard IS easier to use. But compared to my Droid, the proprietary voice-recognition program has been a lot more problematic, especially when operated through the bluetooth connection on my car, and I had to go buy a GPS application that still isn't as good, or as easy to use, or as extensive in its coverage as the Maps application that came on my Droid and I used that all the time (I travel a little...).
I will get over my disappointment, but it made me think about what it is that makes a user interface 'intuitive' and useful. As the result of this experience, I was reminded of some thoughts by Bruce Tognazini (
Tog On Interface, Apple Computer, 1992 ISBN:
0-201-60842-1) on what makes a user interface intuitive that I think should be required reading for anyone developing software. As reinterpreted by my experience, some of those rules are:
1) The user interface I already know is more intuitive than any I have to learn.
2) The user interface that behaves the way I expect it to is more intuitive than one for which I have to change my behavior and my expectations.
3) The user interface that works consistently is more intuitive (and more useful) that one that doesn't
4) The user interface that solves problems I need to solve is more useful than one that solves problems I don't need to solve.
5) The user interface that simplifies or amplifies my task is more useful (and likely more intuitive) than one that makes my task more complicated.
As I look at much of the software we use today, their user interfaces don't hold up well to the test these requirements present. Indeed, it would appear that they have taken what used to be a simple sentence construction and turned it into a multiple-page form.
The problem is that, unlike consumer software, software we use can actually hurt somebody; more importantly it can hurt someone who is already in a compromised condition. And user interface (what the FDA calls 'human factors') have a lot to do with how safe a software product is to use.
So if you had to design a user interface all over again, with absolutely no constraints, what would your idea of a CPOE interface look like? If you were a physician and had to design your own user interface based on no previous experience with computer software, what might it look like? Think outside the box. Color outside the lines.
Let me know what you come up with! My observation is that, until we define what a better user interface looks like, we are going to be stuck with interfaces that are generally difficult to use.
#Technology #PharmacyStudents #Informaticists