PDF Summary:User Friendly, by Cliff Kuang and Robert Fabricant

We live in an age where sophisticated technologies are increasingly pervasive. User interfaces are so intuitive that we don’t need a manual to figure out how every mobile application works—but what is it about specific technologies that allows them to integrate seamlessly into our day-to-day lives, and how did user-friendliness become the bedrock of innovation?

In User Friendly, user experience designers Cliff Kuang and Robert Fabricant explore the evolution of user-friendly design—how the concept emerged from the feminist movement in the 1920s, how it has morphed into the often addictive forms of technology that we have today, and how it might be leveraged to improve human well-being in the future. The authors argue that we must shift how companies apply user-friendly design principles to ensure that technology reflects the values of consumers—and doesn’t just keep people glued to screens to their own detriment. In this guide, we’ll also incorporate research showing how technology impacts the social fabric of society as well as advice on mitigating technology’s harmful effects.

(continued)...

For example, it wouldn’t be socially acceptable for someone else to read our personal emails without permission, and people find it similarly invasive when their computer’s internet browser appears to be collecting data on them without their permission.

(Shortform note: One survey supports the idea that people prefer transparency around data collection. More than half of the surveyed people consider data collection processes in smart devices “creepy,” and 75% distrust the way their data might be shared with third parties. In addition, 28% of respondents said they don’t own a smart device specifically because of privacy concerns.)

In addition, even if people are aware that an AI assistant is a robot, they prefer that the AI assistant mimic natural, conversational language such as “I’m sorry, I didn’t catch that. Can you repeat it?” instead of something more direct like “Repeat your request.”

(Shortform note: Some researchers theorize that people prefer human-like language in robots because people feel like they can apply familiar social norms, making it more comfortable to interact with robots. However, for AI machines to sound convincingly human, and therefore more pleasing to consumers, they have to mimic not only the vocabulary and phrasing of natural speech but also nuanced variations in tone and inflections. Although these qualities are difficult to replicate, synthetic voices are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from human ones.)

Kuang and Fabricant explain that people also appreciate when their friends learn their specific preferences over time, such as remembering to wish them a happy birthday and remembering whether or not they like to receive gifts. Likewise, people generally appreciate when technologies adapt to their individual needs—for example, when Google Docs “notices” that you open a certain document every morning and makes it more easily accessible without you asking.

(Shortform note: In the context of customer service, anticipating someone’s needs and learning their preferences might be one area where AI has an advantage over humans. Some businesses claim that since AI tools can process large amounts of data on a company’s customers, AI can use predictive analytics to anticipate things like when to reach out to a customer or to quickly decide what products are most suitable for an individual customer.)

The Evolution of User-Friendly Design

Now that we’ve explained what makes a product user-friendly, we’ll explore the history of the user experience profession in the US and how it has evolved over the years. Kuang and Fabricant trace the roots of this field to three key historical periods: the rise of industrial design for household products during the 1920s, the increase in demand for user-friendly military devices during World War II, and the Silicon Valley technology boom starting in the 1970s.

The Birth of Industrial Design

Kuang and Fabricant write that the 1920s in the US was when manufacturers first showed a stronger interest in ergonomics, which emphasizes efficiency and ease of use rather than making decorative items without significant updates to their functionality. Women in the US had just gained the right to vote in 1919, and at the advent of what’s called first-wave feminism, there was suddenly a huge demand for kitchen gadgetry that would reduce the amount of time women had to spend doing domestic work.

This rising demand among women for useful household products linked business interests (the need to sell products and expand their market) with social progress and product design. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the low income in the general population gave manufacturers even more incentive to make innovative products that would motivate people to buy non-essential items like an updated dishwasher.

(Shortform note: Economic research demonstrates the drastic changes that household products and appliances produced in domestic labor in the 20th century. One analysis shows that in 1900, the average household spent 58 hours per week on domestic chores like meal preparation and laundry. By 1975 that number dropped to only 18 hours per week as a result of labor-saving appliances like dishwashers and washing machines. Another study in the 1940s showed that study participants walked over 3,000 feet (measured with a pedometer) to do laundry by hand and only 333 feet to do laundry with electric appliances.)

World War II Stimulates User-Friendly Innovation

Kuang and Fabricant write that the next phase of user-friendly design stemmed from a new market demand during World War II: the need for complex machines that soldiers could operate in high-stakes conditions. The authors explain that when engineers developed new technologies like radars and fighter planes, they quickly realized that they needed to tailor the designs to human limitations. They had to make it as easy as possible for many different people to use the technology with minimal training. If it was easy for someone to accidentally push the wrong button while they were operating a machine, engineers started to think of this as a design error rather than a user error.

(Shortform note: In addition to making new devices user-friendly, engineers had other new design criteria to incorporate into the designs and manufacturing process for war equipment: Devices also had to be small and light for easier transport, rugged enough to withstand different weather conditions, and reliable enough to stake people’s lives on. During this era, manufacturers for automobiles, household products, and even children’s toys shifted their production to war technologies that had to meet these specific industry demands.)

Kuang and Fabricant assert that in this context, the user-friendly design elements discussed in the previous section (like the mental model and appropriate feedback) became an issue of life or death. People needed to be able to operate machines or fly a plane even in a high-stress combat scenario with plenty of distractions. The authors explain that it was important for people to understand whether a device was functioning well, and they needed consistency in things like control panel layouts and indicator colors so that the device's operation was intuitive.

For example, a walkie-talkie radio should be easy to hold in one hand, and the press-to-talk mechanism to turn on the speaking microphone should be easy to reach and be located in the same place across devices. This simple design consideration enables people to quickly grab it, locate the button, and communicate without scrambling to find the right button and wasting precious time.

(Shortform: The medical device industry is another context where user-friendly qualities are critical. In biomedical engineering, designing for user-friendliness is often referred to as human factors engineering. In human factors engineering, the designers go beyond making sure the device is effective and accurate; they also look to reduce reliance on user manuals (to reduce the time required to use a device), reduce the risk of human error, create intuitive controls, and understand how both medical practitioners and patients will interact with the device. These factors accommodate the need to operate equipment quickly in urgent and high-stress situations.)

Silicon Valley Boom

Kuang and Fabricant write that the third major expansion of the user design industry occurred in a very different context: the rapid expansion of the tech industry in Silicon Valley in California during the 1970s and ’80s. During this period, engineers at IBM and Apple created the first user-friendly personal computers.

The authors explain that to make these devices accessible for the average user, designers drew on mental models in the physical world: the digital desktop—where you can lay out your work in front of you and see folders to organize digital files, the hand symbol to grab and select items, and the recycling bin or trash icon for deleting things. These metaphors, and other digital design elements like drop-down menus and windows, played a major role in shaping user-friendly technologies, and they’re ubiquitous to this day.

(Shortform note: Some people argue that although the desktop metaphor was critical for helping users figure out how to operate a computer for the first time, it has now become an outdated component of operating systems. For instance, some contend that the desktop metaphor encourages people to use the desktop screen as an inefficient dumping space for random files and results in messy hierarchies of file folders that can be difficult to remember and locate. Many researchers are working on alternative mental models for computer operation that combine AI capabilities with metaphors from other types of media such as books, movies, and video games.)

Negative Consequences of User-Friendliness

Now that we’ve described the evolution of user-friendly design over the last century, we’ll dive into Kuang and Fabricant’s description of the current state of user-friendly technologies: The authors contend that user-friendly design principles have contributed to widespread addiction to social media, websites, and mobile apps.

Kuang and Fabricant argue that rather than prioritizing making digital platforms easy to use, developers now leverage behavioral psychology to encourage users to spend more time engaging with their products. The “like” button (invented by Facebook) illustrates how an addiction to this feedback mechanism—combined with the profit motive of companies—has cascading negative effects on users’ mental health, interpersonal relationships, and the quality and type of information they’re exposed to online.

(Shortform note: In Digital Minimalism, Cal Newport contends that people’s constant engagement with technology has also led to mental health decline due to “solitude deprivation.” He writes that when people spend less time alone with their thoughts, they miss out on important benefits of solitude like enhanced creativity, self-reflection, and problem-solving. He writes that among Generation Z in particular, solitude deprivation and long periods of consuming media have caused higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide among teens.)

Kuang and Fabricant assert that trends like this illustrate a fundamental shift away from user-experience designers helping consumers by making life easier and instead taking advantage of consumers’ primal impulses.

(Shortform note: In light of some of the harmful psychological effects of modern technology, some researchers argue that interactive digital technologies like social media should be legally regulated to protect consumers—similar to how institutions regulate addictive substances like tobacco and narcotics.)

The Impact of a User-Friendly “Like” Button

Kuang and Fabricant explain that the “like” button started as a simple feedback mechanism to affirm other people’s posts without having to type repetitive, straightforward comments such as “Congratulations!” Although it was initially intended as a convenient, user-friendly button, people quickly began to perceive their self-worth in terms of the “likes” they received on a post.

(Shortform note: Several research studies have shed light on how social media “likes” influence our brains, particularly in young people. In one study, MRI brain scans showed that on Instagram, the number of “likes” on an image changes how appealing the image is to adolescent viewers. Seeing photos with many “likes” increased neural activity associated with reward processing, social cognition, imitation, and attention. Therefore, when social media images are tied to self-worth, “likes” become a powerful metric influencing what people think of themselves.)

The authors explain that because users experience a burst of dopamine (a brain chemical that makes people feel good) when they get “likes,” they develop a compulsive need to feel affirmed by maximizing their “likes.” In addition, people are more motivated to act (by liking or commenting) on negative and incendiary posts, so users are incentivized to post more radical content. Kuang and Fabricant suggest that in the real world, we’re more likely to tone down our opinions to avoid social backlash from the people around us; however, since it’s easier online to connect with like-minded people who will affirm our beliefs, these conditions increase our natural tendency toward tribalism—an “us vs. them” mentality.

(Shortform note: One psychology researcher claims that although tribalism can improve social cohesion and therefore help people survive, tribalism fostered by social media algorithms can lead to further polarization by encouraging people to ostracize those who think differently. For example, one study showed that 61% of Americans have unfollowed, unfriended, or blocked someone because of their political opinions expressed on social media. To counteract the tendency toward tribalism produced by social media algorithms, the researcher recommends strategies such as confusing the AI algorithms by flagging ads and suggested posts as irrelevant and reading news from multiple sources.)

Kuang and Fabricant also assert that the Facebook algorithm specifically boosts the visibility of controversial and polarizing posts to increase user engagement—even if the post includes offensive or false information. Unlike earlier forms of user-friendly products that were intended to save people time, websites and apps profit from people spending more time on them and viewing more advertisements. And as people spend more time on a platform, the company accumulates more data that allows them to accurately predict what kind of content will keep users engaged. Kuang and Fabricant write that this results in greater exposure to misinformation, increased social strife, and an unhealthy addiction to technology.

(Shortform note: In Digital Minimalism, Newport discusses three key principles to help people combat these negative social impacts of modern technology: Eliminate clutter by doing a cost-benefit analysis for each technology, optimize your technology use by deciding how you can use it most effectively, and recognize that you can regain your autonomy over your digital life by making deliberate choices. He also describes specific strategies such as deleting social media apps and limiting yourself to the less addictive web versions.)

Making Technology More Humane

Kuang and Fabricant’s discussion of the harmful effects of modern technology leads to what they argue is the central challenge of user-friendly design moving forward: How can we use technology to genuinely improve society and enhance people’s lives? The authors provide two main recommendations to achieve this vision of a user-friendly world: Streamline many of the gadgets in people’s lives and design technologies that adhere to users’ values.

Consolidating Personal Gadgetry

Kuang and Fabricant point out a major limitation of the smart gadgets that have become commonplace in the US: the sheer number of applications and devices people switch between as they go about their day. The authors write that this is partly because companies want to maximize the products they sell and also because of people’s mental models about how technology should work.

For example, Kuang and Fabricant assert that Americans have internalized the idea that there’s a single app for everything—even dozens of apps to choose from that do the same thing. Their mental model of smartphones includes app stores where they can browse through different options and individual icons that they locate to do specific tasks.

Kuang and Fabricant suggest that to achieve one of the original goals of user experience designers—to save consumers time and energy—engineers should consolidate digital products into streamlined processes. The authors argue that to achieve this, we should be able to accomplish tasks in fewer steps and in one centralized place.

(Shortform note: One counterargument to the inefficiency of the app store model is that app stores make it easier for independent app developers to present their product to the public. Instead of a large mobile company providing all the software on a smartphone, app stores enable companies of any size to publish apps, and they also enable consumers to download software of their choice—often based on the value it offers or other users’ ratings.)

In a more user-friendly digital world, the authors suggest that if you wanted to schedule a meeting with your coworkers, you could make a single request to your personal device, which would then contact others to confirm a time and agenda, reserve a meeting location, and update your calendar. Kuang and Fabricant’s idea is similar to getting rid of multiple remotes for a cable TV, satellite TV, DVD player, and sound system, and replacing them with one universal remote instead.

Microsoft’s Copilot and AI Assistants

Kuang and Fabricant’s vision of more streamlined technology suggests something like a more powerful version of current personal assistant devices (such as Amazon’s Alexa or Apple’s Siri). One potential tool that aligns with Kuang and Fabricant’s idea is Microsoft’s Copilot, a technology based on an artificial intelligence large language model, which is able to process natural language and create complex and precise written responses.

Copilot integrates Microsoft’s applications, including Word (for documents), Excel (for spreadsheets), and Outlook (for email), allowing the AI assistant to carry out requests entered into a single window. For example, you might request that Copilot create and email a meeting agenda for a business project based on information in collaborative documents.

However, some analysts predict that privacy concerns will continue to be a barrier to the adoption of AI assistant technologies. One survey showed that one-third of respondents cited data security risks and data tracking as the main drawbacks of using an AI voice assistant for shopping. These potential concerns apply broadly to AI-based technologies as they become more advanced and more prevalent.

Designing Technology That Reflects Users’ Values

Kuang and Fabricant write that another strategy to create a user-friendly future is to design technologies that reflect society’s values. To return to the previous ideals of the user experience design industry—like when consumer products were linked to social progress in the 1920s—companies must prioritize the users’ specific goals: things like productivity, creative expression, improved health, more equitable access to services and information, and more meaningful social connections.

(Shortform note: Some apps on the market that are based on consumers’ goals include apps for meditation and apps that help people monitor health conditions like diabetes. One potential factor distinguishing “healthy” apps from addictive ones may include the revenue model: Apps that rely on advertising revenue benefit from users maximizing screen time and viewing more ads. On the other hand, paid subscription models may rely more on customer satisfaction and less on ad revenue for profitability, making it less likely that the company will use addictive design principles.)

The authors assert that the basic principles of user-friendly design can be adapted in infinite ways to better people’s lives. For example, developing more advanced telehealth—accessing health services remotely using a cell phone or other device—could help make health care more equitable and affordable for people living in rural areas. In terms of social networks, Kuang and Fabricant suggest that social media could be re-envisioned to foster connections while allowing users to maintain their autonomy over their attention and mental well-being.

Combating Harmful Effects of Technology

Nir Eyal, the author of Hooked, discusses the double-edged sword of habit-forming technologies as well as some practical strategies that companies could use to help consumers maintain balanced relationships with technology. He acknowledges that the same techniques described in Hooked to help people form healthy habits, like exercising regularly, can also be used to make people addicted to technology.

Some of his recommendations for companies to counteract this behavior include ending the auto-start feature for the next episode on a video streaming platform, having a company ask users if they’d like to limit their use to a specific number of hours, and deactivating social media newsfeeds during certain times of the day (upon request). He writes that while companies shouldn’t arbitrarily decide on an acceptable amount of time to spend on an app or website, companies should at least be obligated to reach out to users and offer safeguards—especially since they have detailed information on those users’ online habits.

Eyal’s recommendations are optional modifications to restrict the use of products that are already designed to keep people engaged as long as possible, whereas Kuang and Fabricant advocate designing different technologies that are inherently beneficial for users.

However, one main challenge of encouraging values-based technology design is the profit motive that encourages the exploitation of consumers. Some people argue that antitrust laws are the best tool we have for combatting harmful technologies. These advocates suggest that if antitrust laws encourage more competition among big tech companies, it’s more likely that companies will compete by developing innovative mental health safeguards.