great point -- as there are also many ticketing machines that are well
designed, visually, but hard to use. Some because they use similar or
even the same slot for inserting ccard or ticket (that always throws
me off); or because the sequencing of steps is out of visual order
(e.g. not top left to bottom right but higgledy - piggledy). I love
the ones that have pasted-on hand-written explanations or drawings.
For example of the proper way to hold the ccard when sliding -- strip
in or out (this one also throws me all the time). Which creates an
example of good interaction but bad UI on the help messaging (there's
nothing wrong with the ccard slider but the graphical perspective of
the card is weird).
and what of the interaction design on a voicemail navigation system?
interaction and interface, whether its visual, acoustic, sequenced,
serial, discontinuous, continuous, seem only loosely coupled to me
a
My point was that while interactive products need to have great
interaction, not every interactive product needs to have *visual*
design. What about the Metro card machines in the NYC subway system?
They're cute but the UI is pretty basic. Despite this the
interaction design is great b/c they're fast and so easy to use.
cheers,
adrian chan
415 516 4442
Social Interaction Design (www.gravity7.com)
Sr Fellow, Society for New Communications Research (www.SNCR.org)
LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/in/adrianchan)
________________________________________________________________
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
