Lynn said: >The implication becomes, when these distinctions are moot, that >everything needs to be intuitive and familiar. Yet, what is intuitive >to me may not be intuitive to another. What is familiar some else may >be foreign to me.
There is often conflict between change and effectiveness. We change sites all the time... and if we get 10 strong complaints (and we do) for changing things... even with 200,000 uniques, many of the business guys freak out. Change is nearly always hard. Good design can be void of that consideration... great design can facilitate that transition. >What happens to pushing the envelope of design and functionality if >the criteria of familiarity and intuitiveness rule judging the design? There has to be some trade off. There is some measure of new utitlity, reconciled against a measure of resistance to change. The difference determines the adotpion rate of the new. If you figure out how to consistently measure this you will be a hero to innovation. >Did the design(er) inherently fail if the implementer has placed >something out of context? Someone needs to be the champion - for ideas, designs and products. This is one of the great failings of waterfall. Most times there is not a nearly omnipotent champion to battle the compromise and mediocrity that comes with design by committee. Yes, if implemented badly, the design often fails. Mark ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
