On Dec 30, 2007, at 12:20 AM, Oleh Kovalchuke wrote:
This principle extends beyond fingertips. For example: my car is
extension of my body, wii is extension of my arm.
This is very true.
The more the direct manipulation confirms to the mental model of
the system (including the
On Dec 29, 2007, at 9:57 PM, pauric wrote:
Andrei:what are the other 2/3 of the story that I'm apparently
missing
you:product design is not user centered nor technology centered. It
always has and always will be both.
Maybe my math is a little out of whack??
That was a completely other
On Dec 30, 2007 10:38 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can you explain more what you mean by mental model of the system?
The primary function of neocortex is pattern prediction. I use mental
model as synonymous to the mental pattern.
Thus the one of universal principles of
Imagine that.
On Dec 30, 2007 12:43 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So in other words you were just being argumentative in response to my
post. Got it.
*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008
On Dec 27, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Dan Saffer wrote:
So you feel that everything is contextual, that there are no universal
principles of good design that are always true?
To which Dave replied...
On Dec 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, dave malouf wrote:
Of course, at a biological level we all receive
Andrei,
I was just provoking someone like yourself to so brilliantly tell me
I was wrong. ;)
That being said, what is the point of these great laws of the
properties that we manipulate as designers when their
interpretations and utility differ so widely across so many different
axis?
-- dave
--
On Dec 29, 2007, at 3:56 PM, dave malouf wrote:
That being said, what is the point of these great laws of the
properties that we manipulate as designers when their
interpretations and utility differ so widely across so many different
axis?
I'm not quite I understand the extent of what you
Andrei:It's like gravity. You can choose to ignore it but it's
still there keeping you alive on planet Earth without asking for any
compensation in return.
How the 9.8m/s/s is applied to rocket science and bungee jumping are
two completely different contexts for that universal law.
The same can
Andrei:what are the other 2/3 of the story that I'm apparently missing
you:product design is not user centered nor technology centered. It
always has and always will be both.
Maybe my math is a little out of whack??
you:The original question posed was are there design principals that
live
On Dec 26, 2007, at 11:21 PM, dave malouf wrote:
b/c few if any of these laws came out of research on young
people. They are all tests done on adults that have gone through the
same level of socialization. And if my reading is correct all of
these laws are based on research only done in
Dave,
I wonder if the principles stay the same but the dialect changes?
I'm don't remember specifically how detailed UPoD gets with cross-
cultural issues, I'll take a look.
Kevin
On Dec 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, dave malouf wrote:
wow! dan, you have no idea what you just opened up for me. My
I think we need to make sure a distinction is made between Principles -
like Cooper-Reimann's Do No Harm, etc - with Design Patterns - which most
definitely are dependent on context/culture/age/ etc...
From the highest level of abstraction - things are a lot more universal -
but as you become
I'm looking at the table of contents of UPoD (my hard copy is at
home) and there are definitely some principles that I think would
apply no matter what the cultural or age distinction might be. For
example: chunking, affordance, archetypes, compassion, confirmation,
form follows function,
wow! dan, you have no idea what you just opened up for me. My major in
college was cross-cultural psychology as an antrho major. My thesis
paper was on cross-cultural dream analysis.
Of course, at a biological level we all receive signals
neurologically at the some level of commonality. But I
My experience as an anthropologist has taught me to resist the idea of
trying to find too much similarity between peoples. It is often connected to
presumptions, prejudice, and arrogant hubris.
So I do agree that do no harm is a good ethical principle, I think that
dan was thinking more about
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:08:36, dave malouf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, at a biological level we all receive signals
neurologically at the some level of commonality.
According to Pinker's How the Mind Works, we are all the same more than
just on a neurological level. We have several
oh! can i add one more thing?
Do we need such principles/heuristics to be good designers?
I would much rather rely on observational techniques and case study
analysis than guidelines and principles such as the ones being
discussed thus far.
Especially in interaction design as opposed to other
I have just looked through the book (UPoD). The principles described are
indeed those extrapolated to design from generic findings of cognitive,
behavioral psychology (gestalt, chunking, storytelling, framing, Fitts' and
Maslow's rules etc.) and physics, math (redundancy, self-similarity etc.).
Oleh:Therefore they can be applied to heuristic evaluation of
OLPC.
To what end? To measure success?
What is the primary goal with the OLPC, a successful 'design', or
to simply satisfy an enormous hunger for learning?
In the same way the UN RedCross/Cresant dont fly Gordon Ramsey in
to famines
19 matches
Mail list logo
