Hi Traci, I think the article on David Mamet's partnership with Disney was attempting to point out how "odd" or unexpected the partnership was. I also think the article was trying to hypothesize how a Mamet screenplay for Anne Frank would read. However, in order to understand the article and the humor behind it you would have to be familiar with David Mamet's work.
That brings us to a fault of the article. It doesn't explain who Mamet is, other works he has done, or why the partnership between Mamet and Disney is "unusual." It relies entirely on the user bringing their own knowledge to the "fake" screenplay text in order to understand why it is funny. And as we all know as interaction or user experience designers, overestimating the knowledge a user brings to the experience is dangerous because you are hoping the user has the right level of knowledge to appropriately interact, use, and understand the experience you are designing. Unfortunately, the article took this risk and it doesn't appear to be working out. This does raise the interesting question "what is the right level of contextual information you should provide to users?" I am always asking myself this question. I know that is why you conduct field interviews and test prototypes, but you still need to find that correct balance between your experienced users and your novice users. I think this article would have been less offensive to users if more contextual information was provided prior to the "fake" screenplay text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=44836 ________________________________________________________________ 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
