Wouldn¹t the world be a boring place if everything was reduced to a result of some user testing?
At some design conference I went to I saw (can¹t remember which one) a designery chap described the joy he had going to a book shop and buying a book that was wrapped in brown paper and string. The fun and satisfaction he had unwrapping this parcel was far greater than the ripping open of some bland and highly practical Amazon container. Jacob has his place (and I¹ll probably always read his stuff), but lets not devalue any artistry used here. A design/visualisation/dataset/webapp/whatever could be the most usable in the world, but I know I won¹t be interested in playing with it (and perhaps giving them money) if its not fun. Boiling this down to a practical example Flickr is the best thing I can think of. Adding tags and categorising my photos isn¹t the most enthralling task in the world, but Flickr makes it light-hearted (e.g. ³Now you know how to greet people in Arabic!²) and entertaining. They make more money by doing this. J On 15/8/07 10:09, "Brian Butterworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 15/08/07, Simon Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Kim said: "Useful or Playful? Is the question to ask." >> >> I'd argue that useful and playful can be part of the same thing. Certainly >> nothing ever stuck with me that I didn't enjoy using/ thinking about. >> Likewise many of the children I used to teach. The trick is to combine the 2. >> I think there's ways from that set of visualisations to encourage people to >> make playful and useful interfaces to bbc data/ apps if the API's were >> available. > > > As I was trying to say, a system that allows the end-user to construct live > visualizations of data is a commendable idea, but (almost) by definition this > will be impossible for others to use. For example, many people will use red > to indicate an error state and green to indicate a OK condition. But you > can't use that for everyone as 10% of men are red-green colourblind. > > If you do some research you will also find out that some people are > visually-orientated and respond well to these kinds of representations. But > others prefer speech over visual explanations and this kind of thing will > exclude those people. > >> >> Brian said: "I presume you have some substantive evidence that no testing is >> require then?" >> >> That's not what I said, it's just that I'm not personally convinced that his >> views are as up-to-date as they should be and so cannot perpetuate his status >> as an untouchable usability expert. But that's best discussed over a pint at >> some unspecified future backstage event rather than this list. > > That's a total cop-out, either you can explain why no usability testing is > required or not. Personally I don't drink so I can't see why I would never > discover the great truth that has been revealed to your good self. Simply > being rude about someone is a failure to explain - just an insult rather than > a debunking. > > >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth >> Sent: 14 August 2007 18:12 >> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk >> Subject: Re: [backstage] more data visualisation links >> >> >> I guess this brings us right back to Richard MacDuff's "Anthem" programme >> which attempted much the same but with music in the first Dirk Gently book >> (coming soon to Radio 4)... >> >> On 14/08/07, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >>> I think the point here is 'does the visualisation of the data adds >>> meaning, or is just pretty to look at?'. >>> >>> Does your visualisation tell people more about the data set than the >>> raw numbers? Is it 'legible'? Does it expose trends and meaning that >>> would otherwise be hidden to all but the most numerate? Does it let >>> someone reach sound conclusions faster, or navigate quicker, or become >>> more accurate? >>> >>> Which is Tufte territory, not Nielsen. >>> http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/ >>> >>> Not that there's anything wrong with pretty, but good datavis is about >>> adding layers of meaning, as well as the layers of aesthetics. >>> >>> Its possible to remove the 'data' during the visualisation process and >>> turn it in to a purely aesthetic entertainment experience, too. Some >>> of the Jonathan Harris stuff does this - it's information as >>> spectacle. Fun to look at, not 'wrong' per se, but a terrible way of >>> actually turning data -> information -> knowledge. >>> >>> Useful or Playful? Is the question to ask. >>> >>>> > Some of these seem to be of dubious real use. Has anyone put any of them >>>> > though Jakob Nielsen-style user testing? >>> - >>> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/> discussion >>> group. To unsubscribe, please visit >>> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html >>> <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html> . >>> Unofficial list archive: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ >> >>
