Is Kanso the Progenitor of Interaction Design?

11 Comments so far

1. Graham 02.13.08 at 11:32 am

   The Pioneer SX series is revered in many circles as the absolute pinnacle of the “silver age” of hi-fi. Entire web sites exist just to pay homage to the device! A mint condition model like yours often sells for over $1,000 on eBay! In a similar way to your image above, I listen to XM radio streamed over the Internet connected to one of these “monster” Receivers. Oh the irony of linking the 21st century device to one that is 37 years old. I wonder if your iPod will still be working in 2045?

2. Dennis Whittle 02.13.08 at 3:09 pm

   Bill,

   Thanks for Valley Zen – a very welcome addition to the blogosphere.

   We have many iPods in my family, too, and I love mine. What a beautiful device and elegant interface.

   However, I have admit that some of those older receivers and amps had a certain beauty, too. Recently I unpacked an old receiver from the 1970s and hooked it up to my CD player (my turntable, alas is long dead).

   The sound was, well, very discouraging. Not because it was bad. But because it was *spectacular* – far better than anything coming from my iPod. I am not even one of those audiophiles you describe, but rather an average listener with an average ear.

   I am in no danger of giving up my iPod; it has many revolutionary benefits, and there is no turning back the clock. But amid the elegance of the design, something has been lost, and it is something inherent to what the product is about: the sound.

   I wonder whether this is an inherent tension – elegance necessarily involves a trade off with something inherent to quality. I think not. I hope not. But in this case, so far there is.

3. Tristan Naramore 02.13.08 at 5:11 pm

   Oh, this is beautiful instrument! I love 70s amps, back when the rated wattage actually meant something.

   I am one of those unfortunates cursed with Golden Ears. I can easily hear the difference between an MP3 and a CD (when played through decent equipment). I listen to streaming music all day, but at low levels, and certainly not critically. But if I really want to immerse myself in a great recording (Kind of Blue comes to mind), MP3s (or any other “lossy” format) simply don’t provide enough information; they just don’t “feel” real.

   Coming back to the theme of elegant design, it’s interesting to note that when it comes to high-end audio, people are willing to pay more for LESS features. True audio snobs will turn their noses up at even the simplest tone controls. “No, just a volume knob will do, thank you.” The goal of audiophile design is utter transparency. One should not be aware of any “coloration”, of any artifacts resulting from the reproduction of pure music. A lofty aim, indeed!

   I strive for same results with interface design. My business card states, “The ideal interface is invisible.” Nearly every aspect of an interface is the result of a system’s limitations. Computers think one way, humans quite another (excepting engineers, of course The interface is the embodiment of that intersection.

4. Charles Lai 02.14.08 at 4:50 am

   The design and interface aesthetic of that stereo receiver still live on in many car receivers. Unfortunately, when they have a built-in iPod connection and control, the beauty and ease of accessing the music on one’s iPod often becomes a potentially dangerous exercise in frustration when one tries to find specific tracks through the car receiver’s interface.

5. Drue 02.14.08 at 7:49 am

   We live in a culture where its common to blindly rush out to acquire the “latest” of any THING. New always trumps old. Disposing of things is a way of life. In fact Tim Brown, IDEO, said one of his greatest regrets was knowing how many of IDEO’s revolutionary products were now sitting in landfills.

   Often a new product is superior. But sometimes the old has qualities that the new simply doesn’t. In this case, there is a beauty about the iPod but an undeniable beauty about Bill’s decades old receiver. Somehow it weathered the vicissitudes of time, and stands here today, still maintaining its integrity.

   It has a RETRO appeal which is something that defies “specs” logic. Like a collector who loves the tail fins and dual exhaust pipes of a classic T Bird even though it may be lacking in other “latest features.” There’s something the old car has that the new one never will.

   That said— Love my iPod(s)!

6. Bill Fenwick 02.14.08 at 10:34 am

   Graham,
   Your comments resonate powerfully with my own reactions. A couple of years ago I came home from the office and found the pictured receiver along with its exquisite companion single-play turntable had been removed from the cabinet. My wife told me she was going to take the two of them to the goodwill store. I felt like someone had just torn a part of my spirit. Though it made my wife feel bad, it was like having saved a part of my soul when I returned it to the cabinet.

   Shortly before the incident we had completed the installation of a surround sound home theater which uses two HP 100 Pioneer speakers as the rear speaker. My wife asked why I wanted to keep it. The best answer I could come up with was “nostalgia.”

7. Bill Fenwick 02.14.08 at 11:26 am

   Dennis,
   I agree with your comments. Like you I believe that further hi-tech developments will be able to accomplish your hope. Hi-fi component were parented by the preceding low-fi consoles. I think two hopes carry more force than one so I join you in your hope. All we have to do is get Steve interested in a true hi-fi iPod.

   Your curosity about whether among all the tradeoffs we have made there has been a tradeoffs of sound quality for iPod elegance may be the topic of a future post. Is hi-tech driven innovation, because of its disruptive affect, non Zen? I’ve been working my way through that question. When I finish that journey I may share my conclusions.

   Tristan,

   Before representing one of the hi-fi component brands I could hear the difference in a good quality low-fi amp and the Fisher hi-fi system I was surprized to receive for Christmas in 1968. My sensitivity to great sound was enhanced considerably as I studied the components industry and its products. In fact some of my hi-fi soul mates were disappointed when I purchase a receiver instead of separate tuner, equalizer and amp. Hopefully you will retain your golden ear forever.

   Charles,

   I have given up on playing my iPod through my car sound systems. When you consider the distraction from guiding those missiles plus the 10% distortion that occurs when your mobile sound studio is moving, XM is a better alternative provided you have time to identify from among the hundreds of channels, the ones that broadcast your favorite genre of music.

8. Leslie 02.14.08 at 12:35 pm

   It is funny that our current technology offers poorer quality sound, but, that’s not so much the fault of the iPod as it is of the original Napster which popularized the mp3 format. (Or, does it go back to the programs we used to rip cds?) And, I think it’s arguable that had those mp3s not been free (via Napster) they would have been rejected as the low-quality music files they are. Even though most of us don’t have Tristan’s golden ear, we certainly like to pretend we do–witness the trend of wearing those bulky, high quality, dj-looking headphones with our iPods.

   Drue, I think you’re spot on with our competing desire for new as well as our aesthetic love of retro. My Boston Acoustics radio is designed like it was birthed by an iPod and an old knobby radio. I’m told it gets great sound, though, all I really use it for is public radio. I have my iPod for my music….

9. Dean Holman 02.18.08 at 2:36 pm

   I have little understanding of Zen. But if the argument revolves around simplicity vs. complexity, we should probably narrow it somewhat to bring it up to date. Our choices today are actually between carefully engineered simplicity vs. needless complexity. So, I hope the following discourse is relevant. My apologies, if it is not.

   Take the telephone. They were once simple. To receive a call, one lifted the receiver when it rang and began conversation. To place a call, you lifted the receiver and a pleasant voice inquired: “number please”. You spoke the number and were connected. (Our doctor’s number was 12.) A technological advance gave us a dial to dial the number directly; eliminating the operator for routine local calls (but not long distance).

   Today’s telephones come with an indispensable Owner’s Manual. My AT&T manual has 50 pages; my Panasonic manual has 75 pages. The latter includes illustrations of the handset and base unit, identifying 18 different buttons used to operate its many remarkable features. Needless to say, the two phone systems differ, so one must continue to depend upon each manual to properly adjust its many parameters. If all else fails, the fall-back is an 800 help line where, if you are successful in navigating a multi-layered menu tree, you may get help (no simplicity there).

   I am frequently on the phone with Comcast over programming their “box”.

   Take the camera. Pity the poor sole who simply wants to “point and shoot”; as my Kodak Brownie used to do. Though, hard to believe, we were pleased with the results.

   Of course, we brought this dilemma on ourselves by the way of the tidal wave of technological advances occurring in recent decades. Notably, the silicon tsunami, which was driven by clamor to have whatever could be had. This, in turn, drove Moore’s Law. The phenomenal capabilities and flexibility that could be built into everyday consumer items was overwhelming; far more capability than the typical user could understand, much less utilize. So, not only did most of this excess capability go unused (and cursed rather than appreciated) but, the device itself became essentially useless for those who could not overcome the barrier of first encountering this virtual technological “firewall”.

   Fortunately, there have been efforts to address this problem by building in ways to bypass much of the less-relevant options. This effort should be expanded. Or, by designing a two (or more) tiered set of controls. The first dealing only with a few fundamentals, the second, accessible only when, or if, the more sophisticated options are desired.

   The other sorely needed change is in the writing of user’s manuals. The very last people who should be permitted to write consumer-oriented materials are the engineers who designed and developed the product. They too often totally lack the mind-set of the uninformed consumer. In the mid 1950’s, I had the assignment to write the Programming Manual for the IBM 705, Model III main frame computer. One of the first designed for business, as opposed to scientific, use. I had experience in both sales and engineering. Although, it was directed at programmers, the field was so new, there were very few trained as such. My principal challenge was to organize and word my writing for (guess what?) clarity and simplicity; and, to digress, as needed, to explain new concepts and terminology. Altogether, it was no mean task. Industry must place much more emphasis on this phase of marketing. It could remove much of the perceived hopeless complexity of this era, and the next.

10. Bill Fenwick 02.19.08 at 12:58 pm

    Dean,

    I’ve often heard “that misery loves company.” While I haven’t subscribed to the slogan I certainly empathize with your duress at having to spend precious time using and training to use multiple devices and webpages that possess no kinship with the concepts of interaction design. At the same time I marvel at what science and technology have brought about. My epiphany (discussed here on ValleyZen, was contributed to by having to deal with an IBM 705 Model III with its mean time to failure of 20 minutes. (I’m not sure the manual I used was the one you wrote but it provided what I needed.)

    Your suggestion of a multi-tiered set of control is a good one. Is there some reason you did not discuss the hyper complexity of what purports to be consumer facing websites?

11. Kevin 02.21.08 at 4:28 pm

    I thought my brother was the only person with a working Pioneer SX750 receiver. I agree with Graham, will my iPod still be working 35+ years from now? I doubt it.

Leave a Comment

©2008 Drue Kataoka and Bill Fenwick. All Rights Reserved
No Paintings can be used without express permission of Drue.