Pecking order: what a parrot reveals about good UX

A groundbreaking — or perch-breaking — new study suggests that the same best-practice concepts that inform tablet, phone and digital dashboard interfaces may also help support communication between humans and animals. Research from The Open University shows how careful interaction design — not artificial intelligence or automation — can turn a standard consumer tablet into a functional communication system for a very different kind of user: a parrot.

‘While previous research has demonstrated that parrots can be trained to use a speech board for functional communication by selecting visual representations of concepts, this is the first study to have examined how different aspects of the interface design may influence their use of the device’, said Professor Clara Mancini, head of the Open University’s Animal-Computer Interaction Laboratory.

If a parrot can use it, your users probably can too

For UX designers and product developers, the study is worth reading because it treats the parrot’s tablet like any other digital product and asks familiar questions: how many options are too many? What kind of visuals reduce ambiguity? How much does layout matter? And how does a system behave as it grows more complex over time? These concerns are, of course, familiar to digital designers working on interfaces intended for humans.

The research followed a Goffin’s cockatoo named Ellie as she used a tablet based speech board in her everyday environment for four years. Speech boards are a form of augmentative and alternative communication technology used by humans who cannot rely on speech. In this project, the same concept was reengineered for beak-based interaction, with large touch targets, stable layouts and symbols tied directly to real-world meaning.

For you

Be part of something bigger, join BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT.

Every interaction with the tablet was logged, producing a dataset of around 8,500 selections. That data enabled the researchers to analyse behaviour using standard human-computer interaction techniques, measuring frequency, persistence and response to change. Ellie’s behaviour showed consistent patterns. She repeated selections when outcomes were incorrect, adapted to new layouts, and deliberately searched for relocated symbols when representations moved.

Co author Dr Corinne Renguette, Associate Professor at Purdue University, highlighted the value of sustained observation. ‘This four year study involving three speech board iterations, which grew from 55 to 462 representations, tracks how the interface design and the parrot’s use of the tool evolved, with its increasing complexity’, she said. ‘We analysed some 8500 interactions of the parrot with her speech board, which enabled us to detect notable use trends and patterns that can inform future interface design for improved avian usability.’

One of the clearest design lessons centred on visual representation. Photographs of real objects from the parrot’s own environment proved easier to interpret than abstract symbols, particularly without training. Simple drawings of familiar items were also effective when standing in for broader concepts, emphasising the value of visual grounding.

Beak based computing

‘One of our key findings suggests that photos which portray objects in the parrots’ environment and figurative drawings of familiar objects which represent more general concepts relevant to the parrots’ experience may help them to recognise the meaning of those visual representations without training’, Mancini said.

Layout mattered as much as imagery. Overcrowded screens reduced effective use, while consistent spatial arrangements supported quicker selection and recall. These findings echo long established UX principles seen in mobile apps and games, reinforcing the idea that users — human or otherwise — benefit from predictable structure and muscle memory.

When your beta user has feathers

The researchers stress that the system does not imply that parrots understand language in a human sense. Instead, it creates a structured interaction space where choices have consequences and can be studied over time. That shift, from novelty demonstration to interaction platform, is central to the project’s relevance for people working in technology.

For designers, the broader takeaway is strikingly familiar. You do not need new hardware or smarter computation to unlock better interaction. You need clear affordances (clues built into an object or interface that show users how it can be used), thoughtful visual design, controlled complexity and the patience to iterate.