While obviously predictability is wanted most of the time, I feel like this formulation would lead one to making more explicit (ie wordier) and more consistent (ie conventional) designs.
The designs I admire most have neither of these qualities. The designs I admire most tend to have a certain amount of ambiguity, but because of a certain internal logic/aesthetic/feel - users seem comfortable to explore them, click around, figure out a new space, new possibilities. This kind of ambiguity is a requirement in video games, but also can lend other applications a kind of intriguing quality. It's great when users trust the design to give them a good time. Then the design doesn't have to be so defensive or try so hard to be predictable. Also, more and more interaction design is moving into behind the scenes algorithms which aren't really predictable. For instance, you can't predict the result of a search query or you wouldn't need to do it. Lastly, good art avoids predictability and I think there is room in what we do for these softer qualities. I would prefer "possible" or "probable" over "predictable". - Eugene Eugene Chen Design User Experience | Strategy Research Design http://www.eugenechendesign.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=29451 ________________________________________________________________ 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
