On 29 Nov 2007, at 01:38, ELISABETH HUBERT wrote:
[snip]
Despite doing some of the
traditional roles of an UI Architect type (this is the name of
the role
where I work) such as maintaining the site structure, brainstorming
strategies etc... I've also been assigned to represent the business
Its the 'vertical wizard' pattern.
Robert:No need to type anything.
While I dont disagree that its not the best form in the world and
would be better suited with a traditional multi page wizard. In your
view, if someone was actually entering text in to this.. is it really
so bad? whats the
Like statistics, it's a useful form of proof to show others.
I am not convinced of its universal applicability, but it depends on
the project. In some cases, personas may be useful. In others, the
users follow similar paths at different speeds or with different
amounts of data, but otherwise,
I'm looking for a good discussion on how the technologies that get
generally lumped under the Web 2.0 label (which I hate, but never
mind) affect good established Web interaction design practices.
I don't need someone telling me what Ajax is, or what the value of
including customers as
Hi Alan,
The first observation that I have is more in process than in
designing. The web is becoming much more about activity, task and
goals than about place. The standard wayfinding methods that were
used in the initial days if IA are no longer enough. In fact a simple
site diagram is
jared... you certainly make a great point on roleply vs personas I
suppose I made my oversimplified statement assuming the designer has
actually met and observed at least a few possible users. I forgot that
even that element was in question in this thread.
I agree that distinction is
your job sounds interesting.
i can't speak for anyone but myself but not everyone on this list has a
traditional background in HCI or related disciplines. some of us got into it
by proxy - due to our jobs.
i'm head of product for my company. as such, i do a little bit of
everything, including
Hi Lis,
I work for a small software company where we all seem to wear several hats
at times. I'm helping now to create the software requirements documents for
the next version of our software. The work is collaborative, involving our
product manager and software architect. I did not create the
My only problem with it is that it could make you enter the same information
(spouse and dependent names) up to three times, when it could just ask for
it once and let you select them from a list later on down the form. Also,
the insurer information fields could inherit, as well (might have the
Its the 'vertical wizard' pattern.
Hehe!
In your
view, if someone was actually entering text in to this.. is it really
so bad? whats the fundamental interaction flaw?
Great question.
Basically, it completely fails to set clear expectations for users. You
arrive at the page and are
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 05:47:29, pauric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I dont disagree that its not the best form in the world and
would be better suited with a traditional multi page wizard. In your
view, if someone was actually entering text in to this.. is it really
so bad? whats the
Ooh! This is an easy one.
There's no such thing as a User-Centered Design process.
User-centered design is a philosophy, a sensibility, not a process.
--peter
On Nov 27, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
I know I'm asking for a war here, but let's try it anyway. I think
if we
Robert: Every time another section of the form is revealed, your
heart sinks a little more.
I agree. Thats the point I was hoping to explore a little. I come
across people that both like of loathe the magical appearing form
divs. Is the 'heart sinking' the designer in us or a proper usability
Hi Elizabeth,
Your job description seems somewhat common to what I've experienced in
various places. IA's/UX'ers can wear many hats.
Presently I'm the owner of UI design and User Experience, which involves
flushing out all requirements which are executed or displayed via the GUI.
Along with this
I personally dislike them but havent nailed down a solid usability
argument against the design Robert highlighted.
I don't think it's so much a usability issue, per se. It's an experience
issue. I'm sure many people can *use* the form just fine, but the experience
of doing so is rather
There's no such thing as a User-Centered Design process.
User-centered design is a philosophy, a sensibility, not a process.
I'm not convinced.
1. Define the problem
2. Determine the audience
3. Locate and interview representative users
4. Develop persona descriptions
5. Begin design
...
On Nov 29, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Mark Schraad wrote:
The web is becoming much more about activity, task and
goals than about place. The standard wayfinding methods that were
used in the initial days if IA are no longer enough. In fact a simple
site diagram is not enough to accurately scope the
The process you describe is too narrow, in my view, to define UCD.
Not everyone uses personas, for example, or use only interviews
(ethnographic observation, eye tracking, all kinds of stuff is also used).
User-Centered Design is just what it says it is -- designing from an
understanding of
On Nov 29, 2007 8:38 AM, Bryan Minihan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My only problem with it is that it could make you enter the same
information
(spouse and dependent names) up to three times, when it could just ask for
it once and let you select them from a list later on down the form.
Perhaps
The bottom line for me in this entire thread: To those folks who
promote personas as a useful design tool, it seems quite clear to me
this industry has not done a good job of making clear what a persona
is and what some of the better methods are to research them.
Jared, to define that a
Totally agree w/ Andrei that it is just like desktop.
I think both desktop and web app design are heading into new
directions though, which is around cinematic presentation of
interfaces especially around transitions. OSX and XP started down
this road at the OS level and many applications have
On Nov 29, 2007, at 11:27 AM, pauric wrote:
While Andrei is right on one hand that you can pick up a book from
'82 and it will be of great use. The context of use has changed so
much that there's an entirely different dimension to applications
nowadays. To a certain degree that book from
Robert said:
All I have to do is imagine a person to create a persona? And if it's a
real person, it's not a persona? What if I imagine a cartoon character?
What do you call that? If a tree falls in a forest and hits a mime, does
anyone care?
To continue beating a dead horse.
Maybe there is a
Point taken Andrei and no I havent read that specific book. I'll add
to my ever increasing to-read list )o; thanks!
So, on that note, a tier down from that seminal book list, do you
have anything in the get'r'done section that might address Alan's
original question?
Thanks in advance -pauric
Robert wrote:
These are the basic tenets of what UCDers talk about all the time. Sounds
like a process to me.
No, sounds like people who adhere a philosophy (Peterme) talking about their
favorite design process, which includes methods that support a way of working
that matches their
My point of view is that this kind of form is the typical one that needs to
be made in steps, 3 by the way.
The first page is ok. If the user clicks yes in a category, the validation
button brings him to the step needed to gather the information of the
category where he clicked yes.
Sorry for my
I am in the process of designing a support forum for a software product. The
goal is to make it as easy as possible to ask a question. Ideally I'd like
to do away with the need to login all together, but it also needs to be Spam
resistant.
I've looked a little into the CAPTCHA (Completely
My issue with the form is its misrepresentation to the user. At
first glance you decide or estimate the time investment to complete
the screen. Slight modifications or an increase is expected, so I
would not be too put off by a few extra fields to fill out. What is
unacceptable in my
A lot of great responses regarding how to make this interface better.
I agree with making it multi-step via wizard.
Honestly, I was so focused on the disappearing check boxes that I
didn't even read the div that appeared below the checked box. I
wanted to first figure out what happened to my
On Nov 26, 2007 5:38 PM, Matthew Nish-Lapidus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a great article about this on Bokardo a little while ago...
Joshua Porter wrote that the success of any social networking site
depends on the usefulness of that site in the absence of other users.
In other words,
This is good stuff. If we accept that any well-thought out process ought to
be founded on a sound philosophy (or paradigm/model/theory/etc.), why can't
UCD be BOTH a philosophy/paradigm as well as the label (rather than
definition) for a VARIETY of different processes. Which might beg the
So, can this thread be used to illustrate an example of what is NOT User
Centered Design, a topic being discussed in another thread?
Which brings up an interesting design issue. Is there any tool that allows
discussion threads to flow like rivers, connecting at times, and then
flowing off in
I am in the process of designing a support forum for a software product.
The
goal is to make it as easy as possible to ask a question. Ideally I'd like
to do away with the need to login all together, but it also needs to be
Spam
resistant.
First, I'm amazed you know what CAPTCHA stands
Oh, that's why it was gone, it moved down. Well, I don't even
want to finish this form anymore.
Beautiful simulation!
-r-
*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today:
Thanks for all the great responses!! At first I had a difficult time
adjusting to the business side of my role probably due to past
experiences (and arguments) with the business partners on projects.
I'm learning to appreciate this new point of view because it allows
me to learn so many new things
Murli: Is there any tool that allows discussion threads to flow like
rivers, connecting at times, and then flowing off in different
directions
Not exactly related to discussion threads but your question reminded
me of the interaction on http://www.liveplasma.com/
Enter in an artist and then you
why can't
UCD be BOTH a philosophy/paradigm as well as the label (rather than
definition) for a VARIETY of different processes.
I think there are definitely going to be differences in process that still
qualify, but overall, there are a few specific things that are usually
associated with
How about something like a 2+2 = ? followed by a dropdown?
2+2 in text would probably be easy to parse. Make the 2+2 an image
and it would probably do pretty well for next year or two. The
deterrent against the computer (image deciphering) is still being used
but it's more natural since
I'm working on what might be a similar project - it's a combo of
filtering, sorting and faceted search (which could be considered
filtering). Here's a bunch of links, hope they help. You'll have to
start some of these by doing a search, but you should get some good
ideas from the various
*** If you're interested, please don't reply to this address, instead
email me here: adam[at]rippletv.com ***
Position: Interaction Designer (full-time, mid or senior level)
Company: Ripple (www.rippletv.com)
Location: El Segundo, CA (Los Angeles area)
*** Description ***
Ripple is looking
Of course the UI — like other electronic music equipment I've used —
looks typically bad. Pull the knob out, switch to one of the letter modes,
hold the button gently for 3 seconds… Sheesh. It might be easier just to
tune it myself.
Yes. The disappearing checkboxes are the weirdest part of this.
It's also a great example of how confusing the colored sections are.
At first I thought brown meant conditional questions, but I guess
it's really alternating row colors.
Eric
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chris asked:
Does anyone have any thoughts on the best method
to confirm a user is human?
Seems like this made the rounds on the blog circuit a few weeks ago:
You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden
you look down and see a tortoise. You reach down and you flip the
Awesome. I was laughing on that one. You know you've got problems on
your hands when your test participants resort to profanity.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:00:33, Patricia Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A lot of great responses regarding how to make this interface better.
I agree with making it
Hi,
CAPTCHA done right is very effective, and can be accessible as well.
I suggest taking a look at the reCAPTCHA project
(http://recaptcha.net/), they have an audio version available as well,
and it contributes back to the Internet Archive project, always a
worthy cause.
There was just a great
Chris,
I'd suggest you create your own test instead of using a standard
CAPTCHA. The simplest way to resist spambots is to give them a
question they haven't seen on several thousand other sites - and you
can easily make it accessible for humans if you don't have to worry
about fooling the
Hey gang -
Back in the day when there was a clear(er) delineation between software and
the web, the way most of us designed was to use buttons for actual actions or
operations, and hyperlinks for opening or filtering a web page.
It seems to me like this is changing in our wild mashed-up world
Also, if it's a support forum for a software application, you could provide
the key for submitting support requests inside the software, or the
ability to do so (in the form of a button or link). Folks who come to the
site outside the software may have to suffer a login, but those coming from
Robert Hoekman, Jr. kirjoitti 28.11.2007 kello 3:52:
So tell me, dear IxDA cohorts: what exactly is UCD?
That's really hard to say. I'm not a UCD proponent even, because in
addition to user happiness, the technical feasibility and business
viability are almost always equally essential.
Hi Billie,
Assuming that both will be used, I think it's important to maintain a
learnable convention. I'm inclined in favor of the following distinction:
buttons for simple, finite actions versus links for actions that begin a
process or require further detail.
That's a bit ironic, since
Here's one called Asirra that Microsoft is working on:
http://research.microsoft.com/asirra/
Blurb: * Asirra is a human interactive proof that asks users to identify
photos of cats and dogs. It's powered by over three million photos from our
unique partnership with Petfinder.com
That's a neat idea...hopefully your visitors aren't crying by the time they
make it into the site. Clever, tho =]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Murli
Nagasundaram
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:20 PM
To: Chris Maissan
Cc: [EMAIL
And from my readings and attendance at all day workshops and seminars - the
Other UCD - Usage Centered Design - is not User focused at all. The
actuall user not not the central focus of the design effort. What is at the
center of the design effort is a conceptual model of a particular usage
based
I've seen this type of solution used before, and while it requires more work
for the user, it's often less work than trying to interpret the letters in a
CAPTCHA system.
reCAPTCHA is a nice CAPTCHA implementation that uses (mostly) actual
words for verification. And it's a nice way to
Sorry, but I wanted to correct this posting to reflect that it's only available
for Brisbane, CA (San Francisco area). Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: v6 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Nov 27, 2007 7:28 PM
To: discuss@lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: JOB: Information Architect, LA/SF
55 matches
Mail list logo
