Sorry I couldn't make the session.
Inline...
On 3/7/2014 9:27 AM, Rhys Smith wrote:
On 7 Mar 2014, at 07:17, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
[…] The draft offers no citations for HCI, UX, UCD or Usec research
or experience. That's an indication that it has the best of
intentions, but lacks both theoretical and empirical underpinnings,
for a topic that is acknowledged by its leaders to require both,
when doing design.
Short response - the draft currently is not really about recommending
design solutions, it’s more about helping define the problem and
throwing in a few recommendations that we currently think look like
best practice.
Calling for icons is a very specific design solution recommendation.
Longer respones - from our experience with UIs in the world of SAML
federations, there are two major things you can do to improve the UX:
1) Improve the UI directly using established UX research (obviously),
but also 2) Consistency. To some extent, it doesn’t *matter* how good
or bad the UI is as long as it’s consistent across implementations.
If you have studies on efficacy that are applicable, please include them.
That something was /done/ might be interesting, but what is essential is
a basis for judging whether it was /useful/.
This paper is currently more addressing 2) than 1).
Oh? That would mean that there was a framework, rather than a varying
list of different things to consider.
It also means that the nature of the framework has some relevant field
history so that its applicability to the current activity can be judged.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
