Skip to main content

Complex Interaction

Introduction​

This paper addresses the increasing complexity in digital artifacts and systems, especially with modern connectivity and aggregation in digital technology. It explores both the negative and positive aspects of complexity in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and advocates for an intentional and nuanced approach to managing interaction complexity. The authors argue for a concept of "benign complexity" and outline a framework to better understand interaction complexity, distinguishing it across different "loci" or sources.

Target​

The paper is relevant for both desktop and touch interface design, applicable broadly to interactive digital artifacts.

Key Insights​

  • Not All Complexity is Bad: Complexity in interaction design is not inherently negative; under certain circumstances, it can enhance user experience, adding depth and richness to interaction.
  • Five Traditional Strategies for Managing Complexity:
    • Eliminate unnecessary complexity: Remove aspects that do not add value to functionality.
    • Sacrifice some functionality for simplicity: Balance between simplicity and functionality.
    • Hide complexity: Design interfaces that conceal underlying complexities.
    • Confine complexity: Restrict complex functions to certain parts of the interface, often labeled as “advanced.”
    • Dilute complexity: Spread complexity across multiple elements to reduce the load on any single component or user.
  • Introduction of a New Strategy - Benign Complexity: Complexity should sometimes be "shaped" rather than removed, enabling users to interact deeply without frustration.
  • Loci of Complexity:
    • Internal Complexity: The artifact’s internal functions and mechanisms.
    • External Complexity: The artifact’s interface and the direct user-facing elements.
    • Interaction Complexity: The dynamic relationship between user input and artifact response.
    • Mediated Complexity: Complexity channeled through the environment and external factors impacting interaction.
  • Complexity and Control: Reducing external complexity often leads to automation, which can ease interaction but also decrease user control.

Supporting Data​

The authors provide qualitative descriptions and examples, like the evolution of car interfaces, which have maintained or even simplified external complexity despite greater internal functionality.

Other Insights​

  • Benign Complexity Examples: Complex systems like musical instruments or chess are not intimidating for experienced users because they offer depth, challenge, and growth in skill.
  • Quantitative vs. Qualitative Complexity: The paper distinguishes between complexity measured in terms of features or functions (quantitative) and the richness or aesthetic appeal (qualitative) that may be perceived.

Practical Applications​

  • Design for Challenge and Growth: For experienced users, allowing complexity to emerge can lead to satisfaction and mastery rather than frustration.
  • Balance Automation with User Control: Automation can reduce interaction demands but should maintain enough transparency and control to avoid user frustration.
  • Distinguish Complexity Types in Design: Considering the loci of complexity when designing an interface can help distribute complexity in a way that aligns with user needs.

Reference​

Janlert, L. E. and Stolterman, E. 2010. Complex interaction. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 2, Article 8 (May 2010), 32 pages.