72 M^IV99/Vol.42.No.

5 COMMUNICATIONS OF
 I
A CONTRIBUTION
.r>. TO THE
^DESIGN
PROCESS Achieving essential strengths in design, sound, picture,
user interaction, and system integration.

KLAUS B. ByERENTSEN AND HENNING SLAVENSKY BANG & OLUFSI-N IS

a manufacturer of high-end home electronics, mostly integrated audio and video

systems, TVs, VCRs, radios, and the like. B&O wishes to offer the customer "the

best of two worlds"—the emotional experience and technical capability.

User interaction is one of the core compe-
tencies at B&O. The company's core compe-
tencies are design, sound, picture, user
interaction, and system integration. These
have been selected for their contribution to
the excellence of user experiences and the
uniqueness of B&O products, which is how
B&O achieves market differentiation. This
means the user interface ot B&O products
should attain a high level of excellence, which
will make the product stand out when com-
pared to others on the market.
At B&O, we want the interface to be trans-
parent to the user, with a playful feeling that
will make its use enjoyable and inspiring.
Using home electronics—v^atching televi-
sion, listening to the radio or CDs—is differ-
ent from conventional human-computer
interaction (HCI) in a workplace setting.
Both the scope of possible uses, as well as the
range of operations that are possible and nec-
e.ssary in order to control audio/video (AV)
products, are very limited in comparison to
the range of possibilities when using comput-
ers. However, in reality, most AV systems are
controlled by designated computers, though
they are usually small and well conceak^d. In
any case, the looming invasion of cyberspace
into the home by the introduction of digital
TVs and radios, electronic program guides
(EPGs), access to Internet via TV, and inter-
active media such as set-top boxes is making
the problem of navigating in virtual environ-
ments, known from HCI and related fields,
relevant to the field ot home AV electronics.
There are some obvious differences
between home electronics and HCI in the
workplace. First, consumer electronics are
intended for leisure activities. Users are thus
typically inherently motivated to use the

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM May 1999/Vol 42. No 5 73

equipment, and their activities are directly related to
the gratification of their own personal needs. Sec-
ond, skilled operation of equipment in the work-
place is presumed to require the acquisition of
special knowledge, which is not presumed to be
attainable by everyone. In contrast, home electronics
are for nonprofessionals without special training or
previously acquired knowledge. AV equipment for
use in the home should be so easy to operate that all
users can do so immediately.
Some developments in home electronics resemble
developments in HCI. One example is the evolution
of the interface from one (hardware) button one
function, via command-based software control with
prompts and feedback presented on one-line dis-
plays, to the selection of options on screen menus,
and the recent use of simple graphics (for example.
Some developments in home electronics resemble developments in HCi.
bar graphs showing the levels of brightness, color sat-
uration, and contrast). This progression of develop-
ment signals a new era of control by means of fully
graphical displays.
Some people would perhaps deny the need for full-
screen graphical displays to control such "simple"
things as TVs and stereo units. It is still the case that
the interfaces of many everyday utilities possess only
rudimentary means of giving feedback on the imme-
diate effect of operations. This may be adequate, say,
for volume control, but presents a problem in rela-
tion to, for instance, tuning a receiver, or timer pro-
gramming of a recording on a VCR. Here the
achievement of the intended result may not be
immediately perceivable, so other means of commu-
nicating the result of the interaction are needed. The
increasing complexity of products with regard to pro-
gramming possibilities, use of EPGs, browsing the
Internet, and accessing film and music servers makes
the need for advanced interface technology obvious.
A Question of the Right Peopie, the
Right Idea, and the Right Way
At B&O, development of user interfaces takes place
in a team comprised of a team leader, a user interface
designer, a psychologist, a member from "Idealand,"
an ad hoc associated software developer, a narrator,
and an integrator.
The motivation for this range of different profes-
74 May 1999/Vol 42. No S COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
sions being involved in the development team is to
ensure that several professional perspectives are
brought to hear on the design issues in order to achieve
a synthesis that will benefit the user. The establishment
of a development team is a relatively recent occurrence,
as part of an effort to increase the impact of the user's
point of view on interaction quality.
The user interaction design group is responsible
for the specification, development, and verification
of the user interface. A few years ago, it was decided
to establish a usability test facility in order to ques-
tion and enhance the quality of products' user inter-
faces. Since the usability test is the responsibility of
the development ream itself, there is no need to
"transfer" results berween departments, as is typically
done in other companies. This integration of test
and development results in a high degree of synergy.
The team leader has the responsibility of assuring
that the customer will have an excellent experience
when operating a B&O product. So it is essential
that the right team members are obtained. The team
leader is enlisted to generate a consensus on the user
interaction concept within the widely differentiated
user interaction team. The team leader has to ensure
external consensus with the concept manager, the
product manager, the technical product manager
and the project leader.
The task of the designer is to create the user inter-
face so that it contains and expresses the idea and
idenrity of B&O. The designer must maintain the
idea of the interaction concept throughout the
process, and make sure the user interface contributes
to the product as a part of the user experience. The
designer's competence, acquired through years of cre-
ative translation of senses and feelings to design expe-
riences, is the basis of the user interaction concept.
The coordinator's job is to ensure that the user inter-
action concept is in harmony with the product concept,
the product identity, and B&O as a brand. The coor-
dinator comes from "Idealand," which is the concept
development group that creates all new product con-
cepts at B&O, and represents the product concept in
the interaction concept design process.
The psychologist ensures the transparency of the
interface (that it lets the user do what is needed to
achieve a particular goal without thinking about the
operations), allowing the conscious focus to remain
on the goal. This is done by applying a general psy-
chological understanding of the user's activity in
interaction with technology. In key areas, usability
tests must be carried out with real users. Such tests
are carried out partly in the usability lab and partly
in field studies.
The software developer is an ad hoc associate in
the group. This person comes from the field of tech-
nology or product area currently being developed; for
instance AV, multimedia, or telecommunications. As
such, the software developer has a special knowledge
of the product area being worked on, and brings this
knowledge into the concept of user interaction. The
software developer must continuously assist with the
development of models to probe the interaction con-
cept. It is the software developers responsibility to
ensure that the interaction concept can be imple-
mented, to map out requirements for construction,
and to maintain product requirements.
The task of the narrator is to make sure that the
user interaction concept is communicated to the
user via the user's guide. The narrator works out the
key elements of user guidance in cooperation with
the other members of the team. The users guide
must support the users' interaction with the product,
generating an understanding of the principles of the
user interaction concept.
The integrator must ensure that the interaction
concept is an integrated and consistent whole across
all tlinctions of the product, and that it is compatible
with other B&O products. Consistency means that
the same principles of operation must characterize the
whole user interface. This consistency has a substan-
tial influence on the transparency of the interface. The
integrator guarantees that the interaction concept is
written down as product requirements.
Development of the user interaction concept is
initiated when an idea or a problem needs to be
solved in a certain field of technology or product
area. As an example, a software developer from the
Multimedia department proposed an idea of operat-
ing traditional A/V sources from a PC, and demon-
strated the technological possibility. The designer
adopted this idea and created a design model, which
was, in fact, the first proposal for a user interaction
concept. The model now had a B&O look and feel,
but could it be operated?
The model was examined by the interaction
design team, through a number of meetings and
lively discussions. The model was continuously
updated and elaborated into working prototypes and
later ended up as the fmished concept of user inter-
action {specification of the user interaction concept).
To: Klaus B. Baerentsen and
Henning Slavensky (B&O)
From: Karel Vredenburg
(IBM)
Baerentsen and Siavensky present a refreshing
approach to usability as practiced at B&O. Several
elements of the approach are similar to those used at
IBM. Most notably, the focus is also on multidiscipli-
nary design of the user experience with particular
attention being paid to the affective aspects, not only
the cognitive and behavioral. This perspective is
often missing in current practice. The traditional tar-
get of eliminating user problems and Inefficiencies is
simply no longer enough. As pointed out by the
authors, products must also be".. .inspiring as weN as
easy" and "experienced as pleasant." Baerentsen and
Slavensky also contrast traditional human-computer
interaction with B&O's domain of home electronics.
While the characterization is mostly true today, future
directions in computer technology suggest that their
experience in designing home electronics products
may be directly relevant to a much broader range of
computer products as well. For example, they point
out the challenge of designing constrained interfaces
for largely unskilled users as contrasted with today's
large computer screens and skilled users. However,
the user interfaces of newer computer appliances,
such as hand-held devices have a similar challenge
and there is an increasing trend toward designing for
nonexpert users.
which was then incorporated in the product.
During the early 1990s> B&O decided to estab-
lish a usability lab as part of the user interaction
design team. The test facility comprises a comfort-
able test room furnished as a living room, and
equipped with four video cameras controlled from
an adjacent control room, from which the tests can
be monitored.
Apart from a few field studies, most direct
involvement of users in the design process has up
until now been achieved by standard usability tests,
employing an experimental "think aloud" method.
Test results are not communicated in formal reports,
but are taken directly into the development process
by the psychologist and by having designers and
developers observe the test directly.
It has, however, proved problematic to handle
usability issues by testing in the design phase, when
the designers are trying to create a particular prod-
COMMUNICATIONSOFTHE ACM May 1999/Vol. 42, No. 5 7S
uct. This is because B&O products must have the
distinctive B&O ideiirity, so "user-driven design"
(see the Buur and Bagger article in this section) is
out of the question, if, however, the test is carried
out when the design has been concluded, only
minor changes are possible. This situation has
resulted in a decision to aim at separating usability
testing and usability development in a more funda-
mental sense.
Regarding testing, we aim to establish a permanent
panel of users who are able to test products in a way
comparable to the sound and vision panels that today
evaluate the quality of sound and pictures on B&O
products. This may sound controversial, but we
believe its possible to operationalize the evaluation of
ease of interaction in such a way that it becomes anal-
ogous to the assessment of sound and picture quality.
Usability is a more complex issue as the evaluation
is not confined to perception in one sensory modal-
ity, nor to parameters of sensory modalities alone,
It has proved problematic to handle usability issues by
testing in the design phase, when designers are
trying to create a particular product.
but entails numerous motivational and cognitive fac-
tors; learning, habit formation, cultural stereotypes,
issues of symbolic communication, reasoning, deci-
sion-making, trouble-shooting, and so forth.
Because of this, it will be necessary to conduct
tests with various categories of users in order to cap-
ture specific usability features. In order to overcome
the limitations of the experimental method, other
research methods will be necessary (field studies,
interviews, and surveys), as well as the collection of
feedback from the market. In addition to usability
testing, it is also intended to try a "theory-driven"
development of usability.
From Trial and Error to Development
Based on Theory
B&O considers work on usability to be a continu-
ously developing process. We are constantly experi-
menting, modifying, and developing our repertoire
of methods according to the need to enhance the
usability aspects of new products.
The conventional usability test can be character-
ized as a comparative, empirical approach where the
construction of improved new designs is done in a
trial-and-error mode and the evaluation is post hoc.
76 May I 999/Vol 42 No 5 COHMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
Something is constructed that seems good, conceiv-
ably better than the previous version, and is then
subjected to a test by users whose use activity is
monitored, and their problems of operation and ver-
bal comments are recorded and analyzed. On the
basis of these results, possible problems are
amended, and a refined product is created.
Using this line of approach, the cognitive mecha-
nisms behind the desired quality—ease of opera-
tion—remain implicit, and the reason why a
product is "better" is not necessarily untangled.
Alternatively, by taking a theoretical approach, this
may be made explicit and serve as a starting point
for development efforts.
B&O wishes to get to the core of what we call
"intuitive user interaction" [1]. This calls for inter-
faces in which functions are clearly represented and
interaction is supported by feedback and indications,
organized in accordance with known principles of the
organization of perceptual and cognitive functions.
Users tend to explain the operation of screen-
based user interfaces by using terms of handling of
objects and interacting with agents in a virtual space.
From the viewpoint of activity theory and ecological
psychology, this is a reminder that the frindamental
principles of human activity, perception, and cogni-
tion are rooted in the evolution of the human species
and its cultural historical development [3]. The
metaphorical descriptions may reflect general and
fundamental principles of cognition also employed
in relation to the use of modern technology.
If we present information on the interface as con-
crete versions of various user metaphors of scenes,
objects and actors, users can draw upon instinctive
capacities for direct pick-up of perceptual informa-
rion and intuitive cognitive functions. When the
users engage a function, they are operaring in a
functional "space." If movements in this space and
the handling of functional objects are indicated by
transformations in the appearance of the interface,
obeying principles defined in "ecological optics"
[2]; then the activity and its results will be directly
perceivable.
Some functions may be so complex or so
abstract that they cannot be perceived directly.
This necessitates the use of linguistic information
and presupposes some kind of learning. In order to
explain unknown functions, the linguistic informa-
tion must be based on a careful consideration of the
user's prior conceptual understanding of technolog-
ical objects and functions, and the most appropri- Communications
ate way to map new functions to this knowledge.
In order to support the use oi programmed of the ACM
functions and the learning of new functions, the
normal organization of human communicative
processes must also be considered. The limited
possibilities of current technology to access the
context of communication must also be taken into
July 1999
account [4].

WE INTEND TO INVESTIGATE THE MOST BASIC

functions first, and to utilize available technological
means to implement the knowledge we gain in suit-
Special Section:
able interaction principles. In accordance with this
aim, our plan for development of intuitive user
Information Warfare
interaction has been divided into three steps: 1)
Applying the principles of ecological optics to trans-
formations of the visual interface (in order to sup- computer and
port the direct immediate and unprocessed
perception); 2) Exploring the organization of con- information system forensics,
ceptual knowledge of technology in order to present
information in accordance with the users' back- privacy, security,
ground experience in operating technological equip-
ment; and 3) Investigating intelligent forms of
hackers,
communicative interaction (dialogue, search mecha- risk management,
nisms, agents) and possible technologies fot their
implementation in user interfaces. B distributed computing,
network computing,
REFERENCES
!. Birentsen, K.B. Intuitive user interfaces. For mediation of cultural expe-
rience. I'aper presented at ISCRAT 1998 (Aarhus, June 7-11, 1998).
CORBA,
Bang & Olufsen. Mimeo. Struer 1998.
2. Gibson, j , J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erl- intrusion detection,
baum, Hillsdale, NY, 1986.
3. Leontyev, A.N. Problems of the Development of the Mind. Progress, protection techniques,
Moscow, 1981.
4. Suchman, L.A. Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1987. threats to
critical infrastructure,
K L A U S B . B ^ R E N T S E N (kbb@bang-olufsen.dk) is a technology
specialist. Interaction Technology at Bang & Olufsen in Struer,
Denmark.
survivable systems
H E N N I N G SLAVENSKY (hs!@bang-oiufeen.dk) is Senior Technology
Manager and manager of the user interaction design group at
Bang & Olufsen in Struer, Dennnark.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of ail or part of this work for personal or May 29, 1999
ciassroom use is granted without (ee provided that topiei ate nor made or distributed
for profit ot commetcial advantage and diat copies bear this notice and the ful! cita-
tion on the first page. To copy otherwise, to tepubllsh, lo post oti servers or to redis-
tribute to lists, requites prior specific permission and/or a fee. For more information contact:
ACM Advertising 212-626-0685
acm-advertising®acm
© 1999 ACM 0002-0782/99/0500 S5.00

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM May I 999/Vo( ^2, No 5 77