In general I find that the term "Intuitive" is used in describing interfaces way too often. Intuitive is seen to mean "good." Non-intuitive is seen to mean "bad." There are plenty of things that are intuitive, and plenty of interfaces that are familiar and easy to use. But these thing do not always line up with my vision of what intuitive IS. This is most likely not a novel argument but nonetheless does anyone have a stance on this?
I think calling an interface intuitive presupposes an enormous amount prior knowledge. Something is intuitive only to someone already familiar with it. For instance, one could argue that a terminal/shell window is intuitive: The only thing you *can* do is type. Therefore is it *intuitive* that this is what you should do. It's knowing *what* to type specifically that makes all the difference and there is nothing intuitive about that. Furthermore if an interface is not intuitive it has failed somehow. So if we follow that then essentially we are saying only build familiar interfaces. Which I fundamentally agree with. But then how can we evolve intuitive interfaces if we rely on their familiarity to already understood patterns? Essentially I am thinking this question: How can we create interfaces that teach new behaviors? Some measure of intuitive plus novel would seem to be the recipe....particularly as interfaces move away from computers and into mobile devices and more ambient technologies I am curious about what the word "Intuitive" means when we are no longer in the realm of the familiar AT ALL. Can anyone suggest anything? ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
