I think that Pauric is on the mark, but also think that the text on an interface is the most important documentation for the product and issues of clarity, consistency, idios, metaphor, and such are often critical in complex interfaces and a consistency review is often quite a useful approach. For example, in complex products, you might find that you have OK, Done, Finish, Submit, Do It!, ..... and they all mean the same thing. Each new word for the same function results in added cognitive complexity and also puts a higher burden on translators. Now, it is quite a good thing if you fix the architecture of a product and eliminate a lot UI stuff that isn't needed. There is also discussion in the research literature about things like semantic consistency where you have try to have words that have strong affinities like "Previous" and "Next" instead of "Previous" and "Forward". There are many subtle issues with wording that can affect one's interaction with a product like words that can be both nouns and verbs (tough for translators, but can also result in added cognitive burden in general). For example, words like "plan", "file" and "view" could be misconstrued in some labels.
So, systems are always compromises and a RCA might reveal deeper problems that should be addressed, but any system that uses text and labels should get a thorough consistency review (and copyedit) to reduce the cognitive load. I think that tech writers and editors should be in on early reviews of conceptual and detailed UI specs and not just worked on the help and other user assistance. Chauncey On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:51 PM, pauric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Amihay > > I'm of the opinion that if I find myself having to write copy for a > UI there's room for improvement with the design of the UI itself. > Many make the argument that the best UI is >blank< i.e. the system > just 'does'. While thats an ideal, its fair to say the inverse of > this is an overly copy laden interface. > > To that end, a small amount of root cause analysis cant hurt.. why am > I writing copy? why does the UI need inline help? why does the > architecture mandate that UI structure? etc etc... While you might > not be able to fix everything, you might be able to find room for > improvement.. reduce the copy and increase flow. > > regards - pauric > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30365 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
