Cullen Dudas

NOTE: Copenhagen was a multi-faceted experiment that took place from 2008 through summer of 2009, please treat it as nothing more than a hobbyist side project. The most final form of Copenhagen is this video and a flash prototype. No productization plans exist surrounding it. Thanks for your interest!

enjoy.

The Copenhagen Concept User Experience was released to the world via a simple vimeo video with accompanying white paper that quickly went viral. Over the course of a month, it had been featured on sites all over the world, from Germany to Hong Kong. The Copenhagen Concept currently takes form in a fully interactive prototype. Unfortunately, I have no plans to make this public.

Accompanying White Paper Download:
Available in .DOCX and .PDF

It quickly got a start with esteemed Microsoft watcher Long Zheng, at istartedsomething and soon spread to high profile sites like DVICE and ZDNet. Through various reuploads by fans and the original videos, the Copenhagen Concept video is now at 776,438 views.

Design Overviews:

• Logon Experience
• Desktop Experience
• Find and Organize Experience
• {s}Crap Boxes
• Log Off Experience

The designing process for Copenhagen utilized a series of guiding fundamentals to create the best design possible. Section 2 of the White Paper deals with this. The Guiding Philosophies acted as the basic theories of cognition in design; High Visibility, Accurate Affordance, Mental Models, Compository Prototypical Experience Patterns, “Timestamp Cells”, Grouping, Hybrid Idiomatic/ Metaphoric Paradigm. The Guiding Principles acted as the most tangible forms of the guiding philosophies, in that you could point out each of these elements in any given design; Art, Usability, Psychology/ Cognition, Emotion in Design. The Guiding Ideals can best be described as an underlying theory of how the brain views an object, the cognitive processing of the very design; Visceral Reaction, Visceral Experience, Behavioral Experience, Reflective Experience.

In addition, Copenhagen was designed after a detailed analysis of user’s interactions with Windows 7. A case example being the Views Slider in Windows 7.

The best way to sum up the Views Slider is the failure of predicting the user mental model. While it is incredibly powerful and home to some great features, the design of the controls do not properly convey the power of the feature.

(Figure 3.1.2: 3.1) View slider in Windows 7

In informal interviews, users were asked to click the arrow next to the views icon, they were asked a few questions. “Why do you think this menu is positioned the way it is?” Not a single user could answer. “Do you like the menu position there?” My favorite answer: “No. I can’t figure it out. It should be under the blue bar. Why would I like something that makes me feel dumb for not being able to figure it out?” Obviously Fitz’s Law was not applicable in this scenario.

The second failure is attempting to combine view size and view options. In informal interviews with users who claimed to not use “Views” very much, or at all, were divided into two groups. The first, presented with two flash mockups, and Windows 7.

(Figure 3.1.2: 3.2) Flash prototype one

The first group was asked to identify Figure 3.1.2: 3.2. Their explanation was a slider to set the size of icons displayed.

(Figure 3.1.2: 3.3) Flash prototype two

Now the first group was asked what this was. Their explanation was a way to change the views.

Finally, they were showed Windows 7 (Figure 3.1.2: 3.1), and asked to explain it. Some users were able to determine that it was a way to change sizes, as well as set change views. However, they did ask why you couldn’t change the size of tiles and content. Most of the other users (still of group 1) were utterly confused as to why two (in their view) completely separate menus mashed together. One was for size, and one was for type. The users in group one could not fully afford its capabilities, nor form an accurate mental model.

The second group of users was just asked to explain the Windows 7 views. Again, when asked to analyze the function of each control, then explain their grouping, they didn’t really understand the merger of what they viewed as view controls and a size control. However, like in group one, some users could figure out the combination of controls, but couldn’t understand why “the size slider can’t change the size of the other views.”

A handful of users in both groups were expecting that “Extra Large Icons, Large Icons, Medium Icons, and Small Icons” would, on selection, change to “Extra Large Content, Large Content, Medium Content, and Small Content” and display a larger thumbnail and more details.

It is directly implementation-centric, in that the linear slider controls every possible view. Unfortunately, it does not even provide for a good behavioral experience. As it turns out, users could not afford the capabilities of the view slider, nor develop an accurate mental model of the view slider.

Another case example that did an excellent job of putting the one of the Guiding Fundamentals into a tangible form, Prototypical Event Experience.

As mentioned in the guiding fundamentals is an understanding of Compository Prototypical Experience Patterns (2.1.4). Noted in 2.1.4, is that a compository prototypical experience pattern is the minds composite of any particular experience. In this scenario, the prototypical event being analyzed is the experience of Windows.

(Figure 3.1.3: 1) All the main user interface dimensions. Grey- Windows 95. Yellow- Windows 98. Red- Windows XP. Blue- Windows Vista. Green- Windows 7.

The image is comprised of two main components. First, the Start Menu. Second, are the taskbar major heights.  To comparatively analyze these dimensions, a common screen resolution needed to be employed. Because for Windows 95 and 98, the most popular screen resolutions were relatively low, the same resolution used in analysis could not be the same for Windows 95, 98, XP, Vista, and 7. The solution is to determine the percentage of screen real estate taken up by components with relation to the most common screen resolutions of Windows 95 and 98, then apply those percentages to a resolution of 1024×768. From there, the dimensions of the Windows XP, Vista, and 7 components can be added.

Figure 3.1.3:1 is meant to act as a tool to contrast the past of Windows. On a low cognitive level, users will analyze the user interface in terms of basic shapes, with spatial relations to what they recognized as the “past”. The image is comprised of two main components. First, the Start Menu. Here you see the four major start menu dimensions used in Windows (Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows XP, and Windows Vista/7). Second, are the taskbar major heights (Windows 95, XP, and Vista, 7) To comparatively analyze these dimensions, a common screen resolution needed to be employed. Because for Windows 95 and 98, the most popular screen resolutions were relatively low, the same resolution used in analysis could not be the same for Windows 95, 98, XP, Vista, and 7. The solution is to determine the percentage of screen real estate taken up by components with relation to the most common screen resolutions of Windows 95 and 98, then apply those percentages to a resolution of 1024×768. From there, the dimensions of the Windows XP, Vista, and 7 components can be added.

(Figure 3.1.3: 2) A composite of all versions of Windows.

This composite shows us what a user would *EXPECT* a version of Windows to look like, on a low cognitive level of geometrical analysis.

Section 3.2 is the quantification of various designs in Copenhagen. Click the different components:

• Logon Experience
• Desktop Experience
• Find and Organize Experience
• {s}Crap Boxes
• Log Off Experience

Section 3.3 are the Scenarios made possible by Copenhagen. They include; Granular/Scalable Filtering and sorting, Quick Access of Common Workflows, “Human Centric” System Launcher, Short term/ Long Term Digital-Mental Buffers, Collaboration, Social Networking, Corporate IT Control, “Human Centric” components.

Finally, Section 4 discusses the benneft to various customer segments:

4.2.1 Consumers Value Proposition

Consumers stand to make significant gains from Copenhagen. To them, it appears to be completely “new” (3.1.3). With this new look, Copenhagen has the potential to be a complete re-launch of the Windows brand. Consumers can collaborate (3.3.7) like never before, and use their computer as a tool to bring order and structure to their data, media (3.3.1, 3.3.2), and thoughts (3.3.6).

Promise:
Copenhagen is designed for ease-of-use; it works the way you work. It will allow you to make a more personal connection with your computer, and in turn what you do on your computer. By having a personal connection with your computer, you can pursue your passion, achieve your goals; in short, reach your full potential with the greatest of ease.

4.2.2 IT Professional Value Proposition

IT Professionals will gain the ability to have control over user interface elements like never before. Configuring customizable components is almost effortless. IT departments will have very little retraining to do, as the ease of Copenhagen will supplement users existing knowledge.

Promise: Copenhagen gives you a new level of control over the interface that your users see. It allows for easy configuration of collaboration, and gives them the ability to increases the productivity of your users by customizing various elements of the OS. Through productivity increases of your users, your company can achieve a higher return on investment.

4.2.3 Information Worker Value Proposition

Information workers will be able to have highly granular and scalable control over the massive amounts of data they work with (3.3.1, 3.3.2). Through configurations made by their IT departments, they stand to gain significant performance increases (3.3.8). By having “fun” (3.3.0) with their work, information workers will have less stress and greater productivity. Teams will collaborate like never before, for even great productivity increases (3.3.7). Users can get into task-centric workflows (3.3.9) easier than ever. All of this and much more (3.3) will provide for greater productivity, and less stress.

Promise: Copenhagen gives you an unprecedented level of control over your data. Most importantly, upon sitting down to use Copenhagen, you should feel good and feel as if you already know it just by wandering around it for a few minutes. Collaboration between team members and managers will be easier than ever. You’ll be able to bring order and structure to even the most chaotic thoughts and workspaces. You will have flexible control of your workspace, to make it work in a way that makes sense to you. Common workflows can easily be accommodated and streamlined. Copenhagen is designed to work with your natural flow of work.

4.2.4 Competitive Market Standing, Image Value Proposition

Copenhagen stands to improve the overall image of Microsoft, and Windows as a whole. It is designed to work the way that its users do. It is designed from the ground up, based on the patterns of users, not designed for the designer. Using intrinsic empathetic insight, it was created with consideration to the feelings of users.  Using scenarios such as “play” and the general guiding fundamentals make it like nothing ever seen or used before.

With the advent of digital music came the rise of the MP3 player. This market was quickly dominated by the iPod. People grew to love the iPod for its pleasing visceral, behavioral, (most importantly) and reflective experiences. People keep music very near and dear to them, they view it as an expression of their very souls. By extension, the iPod is a metaphorical, tangible tool to express themselves. Due to the high visceral and behavioral experiences, with almost no negative experiences, people have a deep connection with their iPods. The success of the iPod is not only about the love that has been built for the product, but for how the users view the iPod as a part of them.

Windows has had this potential for years. It is the hub of their digital lives. Their movies, pictures, music, and internet experiences all happen within Windows.  With an overwhelmingly positive visceral experience, and behavioral experience that aligns with their psyche, Copenhagen stands to make the same connection the iPod has with its users.

Copenhagen has the potential to bring Microsoft into a position where the company can truly allow customers to pursue their passions, and reach their full potential.