Reprinted from Proceedings of INTERACT ’84, pp. 871-875.
The Visi On™ system1,2 is a personal computer software
operating environment for business oriented application programs. It was developed
to increase the effectiveness of personal computers in the office by providing an
easy to learn, use, and remember problem solving tool for office professionals. This
paper describes its development from the perspective of interface engineering in
a small market driven company where competitive time pressures substantially shape
the development process.
1. The project
Work began on Visi On in early 1981. From a modest beginning involving only a
handful of people, the project grew over three years to include the efforts of
many. When it shipped in late 1983, total costs had exceeded ten million
dollars, total size exceed 350,000 source lines of code, and over 70 software
development, publications, marketing and sales people had left their mark on the product.
During its three year development, the project passed through four major stages:
specification, prototyping, analysis and respecification, and implementation.
The first two stages occupied roughly the first half of the project and dealt
primarily with the Visi On operating environment rather than with the applications.
This work was accomplished through informal interactions among a small, highly
focused, tightly knit team.
During the latter half of the project, four applications (a spreadsheet, business
graphics package, data base, and a word processor) were designed and implemented.
The former two were shipped with the initial Visi On release. Applications development
required that application specialists, people from the core Visi On system, marketing,
and publications all work together. Results were accomplished through more formal and
complex interactions necessitated by the ever increasing number of participants.
1.2. The Starting Point
Visi On began as a fairly general product concept targeted at the office market.
As the first major step on the road to a concrete product, three questions had
to be answered in detail: What, exactly, was the product to do? Who was to use it?
and What constraints would shape its design and development?
What would it do?
The core of the Visi On system was viewed as an easy to learn and use problem
solving aid which would integrate individual applications. This led to three initial
|Provide a consistent, intuitive, and streamlined interface across all applications
to facilitate learning and use.
|Enable a number of applications to run and interact concurrently under user control.
|Provide convenient transfer of information between applications under user control.
Who would use it?
Visi On is intended for office professionals. While a detailed characterization of this
diverse group is beyond the scope of this paper, several important characteristics
should be mentioned.
Most importantly, the office professional is a discretionary user, usually having
alternative means of getting the job done and thus the option of not using the
system. This person must find system interaction a beneficial, enjoyable, and
The office professional is an occasional user who probably spends the majority of
time interacting with people rather than with machines. He is not computer
fluent and would probably find unacceptable a system steeped in jargon or requiring
time consuming manual reading or training.
What constraints would affect its design?
A number of constraints shaped the final product. Among the most significant were:
the nature of the software market for personal computers, competitive time pressure
requiring rapid development, and the requirement to operate on off-the-shalf, popular,
relatively inexpensive hardware.
These factors, together with the limited testing resources available, precluded an
extensive external testing program during the early and mid stages of the project.
Most of the early testing was informal and performed with VisiCorp employees as users.
Many of the significant interface design ideas for the applications were, of
necessity, “solved on paper” and the design was frozen without benefit
of detailed prototyping.
VisiCorp was not in the hardware business. Visi On was a software solution to the
requirements subject to the constraints imposed by the host hardware. Initially,
the product was intended for a generic high performance third-generation personal
computer. This was defined as one having a 16 bit CPU, 256K of primary memory,
a bit mapped display, one floppy disk and a Winchester disk with at least a 5 MB
capacity. High display bandwidth was a critical requirement for rapid re-display of
changed data during interaction with the user. Although the intended host was “high
performance”, the designers often found that they were working at the
outer edge of the machine’s capabilities.
1.3. The Designer’s Conceptual Model Introduction
Much of our early thinking about human-computer interaction was influenced by
work done at Xerox PARC/OSD3,4. Several alternatives were
considered in detail. The initial Visi On design attempted to combine the best
interface technologies known to us at the time with the unique requirements of
the office professional market and the limitations imposed by the host hardware.
This led to a prototype of the core system and an initial design specification.
During this period, the small design team agreed among themselves on the same
design philosophy. However, we knew that as the project grew and diversified, if
the end product was to present a consistent and effective interface, some mechanism
would be required to transfer this design philosophy to new members of the
development team. We needed a designer’s conceptual model of the system which,
once assimilated, would guide designers to make consistently good design choices.
This was especially important when, at 4 a.m. in the morning, they discovered
the inevitable gaps in the design specification.
The designer’s conceptual model began as a list of fourteen overlapping, loosely
defined principles and ultimately was expressed in an internal, proprietary, 60
page document titled “The Designer’s Guide to Well Behaved Products”.
This document culminated several months of effort in refining and extending the
original principles, and continued to grow even late in the project. It familiarized
new project members with our intended user and extensively discussed the overall
effect we were attempting to achieve and the methods for achieving that effect.
The fourteen principles are:
|System Information Access
|Cognitive Load Consistency
|Operation Optimization Product Structuring
|What You See Is What You Get
They formalize the intuitions, common wisdom, and ideas present in the
literature which seemed to be valuable to the members of the original design team.
Putting these principles on paper helped in two areas. The initial designers
were sensitized to critical interface issues, and each statement provided a framework
for thinking about the design problem. The principles were a start at instilling
a design philosophy in software developers who would soon appear on the scene.
User Feedback provides a typical example of these principles:
Immediate feedback for immediate operations should be provided. Processing
feedback to reassure the user that processing is occurring for extended
operations should also be provided. The nature of the processing feedback
should be dependent upon the direction and context of the processing. Based on
the human factors literature, the feedback should be clear as to whether the
processing will take less than 3 seconds, from 3 to 15 seconds, or greater
than 15 seconds.
User feedback may be used to illustrate how the principles were developed,
interpreted and applied.
As stated, it has a relatively limited scope and requires further specification and
extension. Analysis of the ideas behind user feedback led us to the conclusion
that it was part of the more general problem of helping the user to feel and
be in control. This line of thought eventually led to a number of interface “solutions”
which were then described in “The Designer’s Guide to Well Behaved Products”.
|basic interaction techniques (the same thing is always done the same way)
|a single method of initiating actions
|visually and behaviorally reinforced contexts
|engendering a feeling of familiarity through the use of physical metaphors
|what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG)
Basic interaction techniques (BITs) are particularly noteworthy and are discussed
further in section 2.2 below.
Predictable behavior was probably one of the most important ideas underlying feeling in
control. The intended user was people-oriented, not machine-oriented. He had no
idea what was going on behind the screen. Had the machine heard him? Was it
doing the right thing? Should he abandon it and use more familiar, tried, and true methods?
The interface had to capture the user’s trust by helping him to feel in control at
all times. This requirement led to a reactive interface philosophy in which the system
waited for the user to initiate an action, let him know what it needed to complete
the action, told him what was happening as the action was performed, and then signaled
completion of the action or stated why the action couldn’t be performed. This
behavior was formalized in the “user interaction model” illustrated in figure 1.
|Figure 1 |
2. Reduction to practice
The core Visi On system interface is based on a desk top metaphor similar to that found
in the Xerox® Star3. The screen displays overlapping rectangular
areas, called windows, in which applications run and display results. These are akin
to pieces of paper on the user’s desk.
All application windows have the same spatial layout, including a menu line which
provides application-dependent courses of action. At the bottom of the screen
is a fixed, application-independent menu for controlling the desk top. This menu allows
the user to move and change the size of the windows, set windows aside, transfer data
between applications, solicit help, and open other windows which provide application
The core system interface and several demonstration applications were prototyped early in
the project. Informal testing with VisiCorp staff and limited external testing with
representative users was performed. While the utility of the initial test results
was limited because no production applications were available, the need for a small
number of changes was indicated. Appropriate parts of the prototype were accordingly modified
and reevaluated. The interface developed smoothly.
Application interfaces, on the other hand, were a real organizational and educational
challenge. While the core system team was small and in reasonable accord, the
applications involved a steadily increasing number of people with diverse backgrounds and
their own ideas on what constituted a good interface. These ideas were not limited
to software developers. Almost everyone had an opinion – “I’m not
an artist but I know what I like”. Forging a cohesive team whose members didn’t
think in terms of “we” versus “they” was a major undertaking.
Keeping everyone headed in the same direction was initially a problem.
2.2. Application Interface Development
A number of techniques were used to promote uniformity. In addition to the designer’s
guide already mentioned, we held weekly integration meetings which dealt with interface
issues relevant to all applications, and periodic interface design reviews for
individual applications. These reviews were primarily paper design evaluations with some
accompanying blackboard scenario simulation. The supporting interface mockups were static
and only told part of the story.
A small number of people were utilized as interface technique resources and participants
in interface “gedanken” experiments. In this capacity they functioned
more as advisors and teachers than as legislators. When differences of opinion
arose, as was inevitable, they were solved in one of several ways: an appeal was made
to supporting results in the literature if they existed (rarely), an appeal was made
to the designers guide (usually requiring interpretation), one faction attempted to
convince the other faction of the correctness of their position through appeals to
logic or interpretation of market data (sparse), or a central authority simply made
a decision. Later in the project, differences of opinion were resolved, by necessity,
on the basis of their projected effect on the schedule.
Where mechanisms for standardizing aspects of the interface were possible, they
were put into place. A small group of technical writers were initially given responsibility
for producing error messages, prompts and help frames in accord with their interpretation
of the designer’s guide. This required close coordination among the writers,
software developers, and interface resource people.
Another method of standardization involved designing a set of fifteen basic interaction
techniques (BITs) which the application designers were required to use when performing
specified interactions with the user. They are:
|prompting the user
|invoking actions via an application’s command menu
|choosing from multiple choices
|line edited input unedited keystroke input mouse input
|list input form input
|option sheet interaction
|multi-media input (mouse, keyboard, ...)
|delay feedback (machine is busy)
|error message presentation
BITs help the user to feel in control as discussed in section 1.3, by guaranteeing
that the same things are always done in the same way. In all cases the BITs supply
a standard method of interaction. They encapsulate all user-machine activity
necessary to carry out a specific task, including providing selection feedback and
The Development Process
An application’s development proceeded as follows:
The designers produced a product specification and mockup (clarification of the
specification) based on the known product requirements, user characteristics,
hardware constraints and designer’s conceptual model. The specification was
reviewed, modified and approved.
As the product developed, the uniformity techniques mentioned above were applied.
Evolving application interfaces were monitored periodically by interface techniques
resource people and marketing.
Once the software was reasonably complete and stable, its interface was evaluated.
The earliest testing involved VisiCorp employees as subjects, followed somewhat later
by external subjects. Relatively late in the development cycle, tests with
cooperative corporate customers willing to sign a confidentiality agreement was
performed. Finally, some pre-shipment user feedback was obtained during several
weeks of extensive dealer demonstrations and training.
3. Lessons learned
The Visi On operating system made heavy use of prototyping early in its development
cycle. Thus there were relatively few interface surprises. In contrast, the
application interfaces were developed using a paper based evaluation approach.
As described above, the paper-based approach involved evaluation and approval
of interfaces based primarily on their paper specifications. These evaluations were augmented
by scenario walk through and mockups, but these ultimately required the
reviewer to visualize something that didn’t exist based on an inevitably
Because a reasonably complete working interface became available relatively late in the
development cycle, the process was somewhat open loop. The risk that there would
be late problems which only heroic efforts could correct was very real.
3.2. A Paper Based Methodology is Fine But...
The paper-based design specification is necessary and has several things to
recommend it. Most importantly, it provides a record of design decisions and
their rationale. Of somewhat lesser importance, it can be widely disseminated and
read, or carried about and studied at leisure in almost any location. But
as a method of evaluating an interface, it is sadly deficient.
There are just too many important details for it to be really complete or to
work effectively. The design gaps, which always appear under time pressure, produce
a vacuum which the software engineer obligingly fills with a personalized design
which is exactly what he would want if he were a representative user – but he isn’t.
Paper specifications, even if they were complete would not tell the story. They
fail to portray the dynamics and synergy of the interface and are consequently
imperfect mechanisms, at best, for review. The reviewer tends to use the
specification to simulate the interface in his head. To do so, he must interpret
liberally. This process is tedious, not enjoyable, and leads to incomplete reviewing.
Further, the interpretation inherent in the simulation process leads to nasty
surprises – “But that’s not how I thought it worked!”
The solution to these problems is extensive early rapid prototyping and testing.
This is discussed briefly under conclusions below.
3.3. Product Evaluation Context
Another trap is over reacting to interface test results obtained out of context.
One gets quite different results if the subject is asked to “just play with
the system” and perform a set of artificial mini-tasks, or to perform useful
and familiar work. Mini-tasks are useful for studying specific interface problem areas,
but they may give results which are at odds with tests performed within a
problem solving context. An example is comparing function activation times via
mouse-pick and keystroke without regard to context.
3.4. The Novice/Expert Design Point
We began with the goal of accommodating a totally naive user, an expert, or a
user anywhere in between. We were able to produce sample interface designs for
certain tasks which appeared to be so guided that almost any user who could
understand english could correctly perform the task. This was accomplished by breaking
the task into many primitive subtasks and liberally supplying prompts.
These designs were reminiscent of some mainframe interfaces which used teletypes.
They did not make reasonable use of the output bandwidth of the system
and were excruciatingly painful for anyone other than a novice. The Visi On
interface philosophy was essentially visual, rather than symbolic. To accommodate
both the truly novice user and the expert, and still properly utilize the
display bandwidth, we would require two essentially different interfaces. We eventually
biased the interface in favor of the more experienced user. A totally naive
user has to acquire a certain amount of knowledge before he can solo. The
requirement is not great, but neither is it zero.
The reality of compressed schedules in a competitive market, the frequent dearth of
published human factors material relevant to our work, and the inadequacies of paper
evaluation methodologies all underscore the need for rapid
prototyping tools applied as a formal part of the early design process.
A prototype implemented early, refined and tested may serve as the nucleus of
the interface design specification supporting the conventional paper functional
specification. The prototype would provide an unambiguous review mechanism, provide
a concrete gauge for measuring the production software, and could be evaluated early
enough in the development cycle to allow end user reactions to substantially
influence the final product.
George H. Woodmansee
San Jose, California. U.S.A.
- Woodmansee, G. H. Visi On’s Interface Design
BYTE, July, 1983; Volume 8 Number 7 (Pages 166-182)
- Lemmons, P. A Guided Tour of Visi On
BYTE, June 1983; Volume 8 Number 6 (Pages 256-278)
- Smith, D.C.; Harslem, E.; Irby, C; Kimball, R. The Star User Interface: An Overview
Proc. of National Computer Conference; 1982, June 7-10; Houston (Pages 515-528)
- Goldberg, A. et al. Smalltalk
BYTE, August, 1981; Volume 6, Number 8, Smalltalk Theme Issue
Star® is a registered trademark of Xerox Corporation.
Visi On™ is a trademark of VisiCorp.