On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:30:45 -0400, Paul wrote: >The struggle you are expressing is a common one. Personally, I think it stems >from a misunderstanding of the word "consistency." If you interpret "consistent" as "things needing to be the same," then you very quickly fall into the trap you describe. However, more accurately, "consistency" is *as much* about "distinguishing things that have good reason to be distinct" as it is about "making things the same when they have no good reason to be distinct." As Jeff Howard points out, your ability to express your rationale about things you have made the same, and those you have made different, will help communicate the consistency of your design to your project stakeholders.
Partly. There are times when the user may not expect or predict, but things have to make sense in context. If making sense in context means presenting in an inconsistent way with other contexts, then why wouldn't you? Most days someone says to me 'but it's not consistent with how we've done it somewhere else', and I say, 'but it works'. * Nick Gassman - Usability and Standards Manager - http://ba.com * ________________________________________________________________ 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
