Now we're going to move through some design perspectives for IoT devices and embedded interface design. Really this is just to consider different ways of looking at the design aspects of these type of systems. In different ways that we can think about, what we're trying to achieve when we're putting these designs together. One of the first ones that you might run into is from Don Norman. In his concept of emotional design. We talk about Norman in a few different places. In the course, he's certainly known for his perspectives on design. This particular perspective, thinks about the three levels of emotional design that he presents: visceral, behavioral, and reflective. The visceral design of something is how it appears, how attractive it is. What effect does it have on people that see it? This is really the first impression. As we know, first impressions are important. It relates back to branding. How people react when they see a device. Does it meet their expectations? The next one is behavioral. Here we're looking more at, how is the device when we're actually using it? Is it pleasurable to use? Does it meet our expectations? This is often the kind of thing that we're looking at when we're doing user experience and usability testing. If those tests succeed, then the user might feel like they're succeeding in whatever it is that they're trying to learn about the device or what they're trying to use the device for. Reflective is a little bit different in that, it really is how that device portrays the person that owns it or use it. This really is more something that in some cases is unconscious to people. Do they feel like that device represents what they want to present when they're seen with the device? A positive response here. That relationship between the device and the user might in some cases make up for some of how the device is used. It may turn out that the device is behaviorally difficult, but it's something that the user really likes and is willing to put up with some of its oddities in operation. Here's emotional design perspective in action, and this is the Juicy Salif, a lemon squeezer. You can probably think of a much simpler approaches to this. But again, think about those three levels of emotional design. Viscerally, when you look at this device, it probably triggers some reaction. You might think it's particularly cool, you might think it's odd, but it certainly is going to have an impact. Behaviorally, doesn't do what it needs to do. It looks like it would, and you could probably put a lemon on it and get lemon juice. But reflectively, is this something that I would want to own? Is this something that I would want to share with others? That might be because, again, as the designer of the device mentioned, it's not really focused on squeezing lemon, it's really about starting a conversation. Again, devices can have a lot of different aspects, and these emotional perspectives are probably good ones to consider. Another way to consider a design is based on the device's interaction level and its placement. Consider for a minute, if you were creating a remote hard drive, that remote hard drive might end up in a closet. You might not see that device very often. If there are any interactions directly on the device like a power switch, or a reset switch. You would want those things to be as clear as possible and be facilitated well because they're extremely rare interactions for the most part, the device isn't seen and it isn't touched. In that case, when something is inconspicuous and the interactions are rare, there's a different design envelope there than there might be for something that is more conspicuous even if you don't interact with it so often, something like a motion detector in a room. That because it's out in the room and you can see it, it's conspicuous, you'll want to focus more on the aesthetics and the brand language that's presented. You may not have to be as concerned about interaction because again, it's going to be rare that someone actually goes and uses the device. Take that for another step and consider something like a remote control for a television. That is both conspicuous and frequently used. So while you do want to try and deal with the aesthetics of the device and make it look nice and blend into its environment or satisfies user, the functionality has to be clearly stated. It has to be clear to people that are using it, what it needs to do, how it should work, how I'm going to pick it up and interact with it. Again, considering interaction and placement as a design perspective is another nice way to break out how we're going to consider, what we're going to focus on in a given design. Another approach that's very common is the idea of a visual brand language. This perspective is really focused on trying to blend visual elements, shapes, materials, colors, graphics, and even operational elements to provide a product that looks like it's part of a line of products and that it comes from a specific vendor. A couple of typical examples of this would be Apple's devices, which usually have a very clean and distinctly Apple look to them. Another would be Dyson products like their vacuums and fans. Very hard to see one of those and not think that it's from Dyson. Why does this matter? Well, obviously, companies like Apple and Dyson recognize that having a visual brand language for device enhances your users loyalty, could potentially speed adoption because people would be familiar with the devices, can increase the shelf life of a device because people are used to having those specific devices around. They like the look, they like to keep them in use and you could use it, for instance, to shift to a change in a product line or to shift into a new product cycle where you're going to make changes to the visual brand language, and you're going to use specifications and style guides to outline what those changes are. Again, just another perspective on design, and some of the things that [inaudible] as an electrical engineer or a software developer, we may not be directly in line with, but usually we will have part of what we're developing being driven by these type of decisions. Another way to consider device is through its so-called phases. One source for this breaks these phases into three elements, story, art, and a science. The story's side of a device focuses on its form and its function, its usability. What does it do? How does it work with a person, if it does work with the person? How clear is it provides the function? Is there practical elements to the design like having to replace batteries or the particular interface that it uses that have to be there. Again, this is the key form and function and usability issues related to a device. The art side of the device is aesthetics. This is, again, the brand language. This could be trying to make sure that you have some look that lets the products go well together. How do we give the device personality and character and what elements blend in to provide the sensory experience of the device, including how much it weighs, how does it feel, what temperature is it, etc.? The science side is more around what materials it's made from, what manufacturing issues there are, and how is it maintained? So this is really thinking more about the assembly and the creation of the device. Again, just three different perspectives, different ways to consider a device, different ways to brainstorm. What's important in a new device design that might be part of a prototype that you're working on to create a look and a feel, and to give that device its own personality. One of the things that comes up often in design cycles is the need for consistency. It's so easy, whether we're writing the software or creating a set of electronic devices, to break design consistency and lose the benefits of presenting that consistent look and function to our users. When we break consistency, we're going to impact learning, we're going to cause some confusion and frustration. It would be better if we can try to maintain as consistent a flow of views and a look and a function in our devices as we can. There's a number of different types of consistency; the visual consistency, the functionality, the usability of the device, which is called internal here, and the external, how does it work with other systems and products? If you can maintain the key consistency around behavior, visuals, the patterns of use with the device, you'll be more successful. Again, this, maybe of all the things that we've mentioned in these perspectives, is probably one of the most important ones to try and keep in consideration when you're doing your designs. If you want to dig into the aspects of creating connected products at this level and consider the balance of design versus user experience, I highly recommend the Designing Connected Products book by Rowland and a group of other authors. Really great book. It's been out for a little while, but what you'll find in here are a number of perspectives on design that you won't see anywhere else. If you're going to be designing devices for a living, whether it's from a software or an electrical engineering or a mechanical side, the perspectives that you'll get here, I think you'll find extremely valuable, so do consider a look at this at some point in the future. In summary, we've looked at a lot of different perspectives for considering embedded devices; emotional design, the interaction and placement of devices, visual brand languages, and the different faces of physical products. Most importantly, though, I still think consistency in what you're presenting, whether, again, it's software or an actual physical device, couldn't be more important. So think about these things a little bit and try to blend them into your work when you're doing your designs and your prototypes. Thank you.
