> > On the value proposition: some people separate "usable" (able to complete a > task) and "useful" (able to complete the required task at the required time > in the required place).
But that's not the definition of "useful". Useful simply means to be of use, does it not? There is definitely a separation. Something can be usable without being useful, and vice-versa. I can use a wristwatch pretty well, but I have no need for one. Considering a thing/system/site outside of its context of use (i.e. where it > needs to be useful) is responsible for much misery - some bloke I sat and > listened to the other day (he looked a lot like you, only older) mentioned a > police dispatch/alert system that failed because the users didn't want to be > finding the control key while being shot at - go figure :) > I'm not considering a thing outside of its context, just exploring whether or not these two terms are synonyms or not. I'm not sure what you meant, "looked a lot like you, only older", but I'll assume it wasn't meant negatively. For the record, something about "usability = predictability" has bothered me since I first saw it written yesterday. I'm playing devil's advocate here to see if it holds up. I don't think it does. I'm relying on the IxDA community to come up with all those crafty arguments that make it fall apart. I tossed this out to the Twitterverse last night as well. The most practical reply I got? Slot machines. Definitely usable while unpredictable. The best answer? Women. (Crass, perhaps, but funny. Apologies.) -r- ________________________________________________________________ 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
