On 6/9/08, Jared Spool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Seriously, all I'm trying to say is that if you try to focus on > expectations, it's a hit-or-miss proposition. If you focus on needs, you > increase the odds of a hit.
The focus should definitely be on meeting and needs, but we also need to pay attenion to expectation. We need to design the system to effectively communicate that it is, in fact, meeting a given need. E.g., labeling buttons "Save Now" vs. "Store" and "Get Backrub" vs. "Physical Manipulation." What about when it comes to *anticipating* user needs? When you've done a lot of research and you've seen how a lot of people work, you get a good idea of what people need to do when. But sometimes, as in the case of novice users, they may not realize they have this need. Are there guidelines around anticipating needs *effectively*, i.e., without being intrusive? I imagine one way to do this would be to establish some sort of visual hierarchy. There might be consistent areas for content, data entry, main functions, secondary functions etc... Experienced users would know where in that hierarchy to look to meet whatever need, and novice users could learn to look there too. F. ________________________________________________________________ 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
