At certain times I notice that, although our thinking process is quite arbitrary, there is definitely an overall tendency to form structures, which then play an essential role in thinking. Here is one simple example for people who have experienced programming.
Any advanced algorithm would involve data structures. But prior to thinking about an algorithm problem, one obviously cannot know what data structure to use. Thinking about the problem would gradually reveal the structure, and after that, any algorithms immediately become apparent or at least more organized by the structure. The 5th rule in Rob Pike’s 5 Rules of Programming says:
Data dominates. If you’ve chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident. Data structures, not algorithms, are central to programming.
Let me generalize this to:
Ontology/concept/structure dominates. If you’ve chosen the right ontology and organized things well, the actions will almost always be self-evident. Ontologies, not actions, are central to thinking.
As this applies to human thinking in general, it of course applies to user experience (design).
The technology industry has been trying really hard to create a so-called better experience by hiding what designers deem as unnecessary, technical, or boring details. While this claim does not appear to be a problem, the actual practice has a giant one. What designers are trying to do is removing every piece of structured conceptual element, or ontology, so that users can accomplish tasks just by thinking with verbs, like “call mom”.
The removal of associated ontologies will, as shown in the programming analogy above, degrade user understanding. If users try to understand with their own sense, they will also be frustrated by the fact that the design does not expose those ontologies as if they were not important. In fact, most phrases we encounter in user experience design are specific and complex enough to be only understandable with hints of ontology. Deciding to hide them in this case is simply unwise and results in both designers and users not knowing what they are doing.
Unfortunately and dangerously, by encouraging users to think with simple verbs, like “call mom”, technology almost treats them as if they are unable to think. This precisely extends to a very bad future universally recognized by thinkers. The next decade of user experience design should bring a new level of integration with ontology. Fortunately, when ontologies are thoughtfully expressed, they can be very easily understood, as certain pieces of graphical interaction design have demonstrated.
We also need to reorganize our existing system. For example, “deleting” should rather be “moving to trash” because it eliminates one specific name of an action that naturally follows its related ontology.