Jared, I chose the word "technique" poorly. I think we're on the same page. I meant that "context" is so pervasive that it can't be contained in just one characteristic. I actually think the 5 characteristics are a way of describing context (amongst other things).
You said: "In other words, its more important that the design matches the context than it is that it matches the characteristics. Or, in other other words, if the design matches the characteristics perfectly, but doesn't match the context, you're screwed. But what do you mean "matches the context"? that it meets the user need and business goals? - thats "relevant". A design *can't* match the characteristics without context. Examples: When I see a button miles away from the chart it effects I see a failure of "control" because the button is out of context. Tufte's "small multiples" are a great example of designing for good "understanding" by providing other data points as context. A mutual fund site with which I am intimately acquainted doesn't do a very good job of "helping you find replacement funds" because the activity of "looking at your funds performance and fit for your portfolio" and "looking at (and filtering) the list of possible funds" are not "connected". I could go on and on ... I suppose I could show "context" as a things that surrounds everything else. a little bit like midichlorians ;-) - Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=43338 ________________________________________________________________ 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
