Re: [IxDA Discuss] Designing for Specific Audiences- in this case Finance

[Gloria Petron]

Hi Harry,
It's true things like "agency vs. insider" and "relationship w/developers" *
shouldn't* affect an application's requirements, unless we decide to talk
literally about the physical document, which is a whole other topic. But you
answered the question yourself: the physical setup between a UI designer and
a development team has a big influence on how those requirements get built.

Since there's still so much I don't really know about Paige's project,
though, it would be premature for me to get crazy with the rambles just yet.
:-)

Best regards,
-G

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?

[Uday Gajendar]

On May 4, 2008, at 8:10 PM, Scott Berkun wrote:
The thing missing from this thread is that there are many possible  
reasons
why any given design is complex - everyone is right at least some of  
the

time.



Great summary... Just wanted to add a quick reminder about Maeda's  
Laws of Simplicity, two in particular concerning the inevitability of  
complexity:


Law #5: Simplicity and complexity need each other
http://lawsofsimplicity.com/?p=54

Law #9 Some things can never be made simple
http://lawsofsimplicity.com/?p=58

In my view the vast machinery of consulting, training and  
certifications will continue onward regardless of what designers do or  
preach, both in enterprise (Oracle dBA, Cisco, etc.) and consumer  
(Geek Squad or Dummies books). There's tons of money to be made and  
folks clever enough to milk it :-) As designers, we just can't get  
worried about that... There's simply (ha!) too many competing forces  
and players in the ecosystem as Scott indicates; you'd go insane  
sorting it all out! (or the fruitless game of blaming someone)


As designers we must be accountable for delivering what's best for the  
*intended* user base/audience, balancing complexity (power) and simple  
(elegance), however that may be interpreted for the given problem.  
That's why we're paid the big bucks :-)



Uday Gajendar
Sr. Interaction Designer
Voice Technology Group
Cisco | San Jose
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 408 902 2137


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Joe Sokohl]

No worries--and my  note wasn't a rant, of course.

My connectivity needs go beyond just 911--but you are right, sir. And  
that's actually one of the wonders of telecom now. I'm quite pleased  
with that aspect.


As a motorcyclist, though, I want to be able to call for a tow if I  
get a flat and don't want to fix it...or if I'm in a wreck that  
doesn't call for 911. Too, I want to be in touch while I ride--my wife  
would like to know I'm ok. So coverage is critical. If the company  
can't or won't build the towers to cover where I really need covering,  
then I won't choose that company. Sometimes companies try to build  
towers but meet with community resistance (for whatever real or  
imagined reason). Other times, companies simply decide that revenue in  
area A doesn't warrant investment. No worries--I understand. But I  
still need to choose coverage area as a more important reason for  
choice that device features.


The fact that VERY VERY VERY few phones in the US aren't tied to  
specific services is, well, a fact. Doesn't make it a good thing, and  
it certainly degrades user experience, but I agree with you--the US  
has simply not caught up with the rest of the world.


When we do, I will jump at an iPhone (and, no, I don't wanna hack  
one). I want one, I'd love to have one, but the ATT/Apple biz  
decisions have compelled me to avoid one for now.


joe




Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 11:50:31
From: dave malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Point of clarification, Sir Joe.
If 911 is your concern. "coverage" is irrelevant. Put the phone on
roam and you can ALWAYS dial 911. In fact, you can take a phone out
of service (like I just did) on any phone and it can ALWAYS dial 911.
When you donate a phone to the police dept. They give it to homeless
people for just this purpose.

As to the rest of your rant. How do you know that Verizon didn't
turn down Apple first?


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Designing for Specific Audiences- in this case Finance

[harry zupnik]

Paige; 

Have you already looked at some of the very good "finance-related"
web sites that are out there already?   Not knowing exactly which
type of "finance-related" transactions you have in mind, you might
look at Fidelity dot com, Diversified (DivInvest dot com) and
CitiBank dot com (which doesn't look at all flashy but works great.

I can send you to some bad ones too ;(

Regards
=harry=
1 917.696.0707


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28426



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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Designing for Specific Audiences- in this case Finance

[harry zupnik]

Hi, Gloria & Paige;

Good additions; some comments: 
the question about whether the sytem was client-facing or employee
facing is part of what was intended with the "which audience"
question I posed first... you can break "financial" interactions
down further by asking if it's DIRECTLY client facing or INdirect
(e.g. a broker, funds manager or IA betw. client and provider). 

For Gloria's last question, I make the heroic ( but reasonable ;)
assumption that there ALWAYS is a piece of back-end or legacy app
that you will have to integrate with.

Why the question about agency v. insider? and  relationship w/
developers?  These shouldn't affect requirements, altho they may
have major impact implementation details & trade-offs...


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28426



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

[IxDA Discuss] Job: Sr. Interaction Design. Loc: NYC. CO: Ariel Partners: Recruiter/ Full-time Employee or Contract long term

[Bert Copello]

Senior Interaction Designer: Loc: NYC.  CO:Ariel Partners LLC;
Recruiter: Full-time Employee or Contract long term.

This position is for immediate hire. The salary/rate and tax structure is
open for the right resource able to make a long term commitment; i.e. 
Full-time or Long term consulting will be considered.

This opportunity involves the development of a Web based Enterprise
Product on a  J2EE Websphere platform employing Web 2.0/ AJAX Technologies
on the  front end. The Product is an Enterprise Scale Time and Attendance 
Workforce Management System to help large client and its sub-agencies 
manage critical resources.

Location: Highly accessible; near Penn Station in NYC.

Description:Designing for leading edge interactive AJAX web (thin  client,
rich GUI  or  RIA), developing screens; work closely with  business
analysts, clients, and the UI development team.  Application UI/ID/UX
position, major deliverables are Hi-Fi prototype,  which use fairly
complex JavaScript; used by development as a spec and  by management to
foster client feedback, and to support inside sales.

Intermediate JavaScript skills would be necessary for a candidate to be 
successful.  Visual design, information architecture and interaction 
design.  Help refine the technological concepts  like XSL/Ajax; that 
power the application front-end.  Work closely with development to ensure
successful implementation of GUI specifications.

Required Strengths:

* Strong Application Design background, with heavy thin
  client/browser based applications,
* Ability to design from written and verbal requirements.
* Ability to facilitate collaborative requirements definition
  meetings from a user advocates position.
* Hands on experience with fundamentals of design; Full SDLC
  experience from a UI  POV, including: Abstract design, articulate logic
flows as well as screen-flows; states and transitions. (Focused Exp.
Required)

* Lo-Fi to Hi-Fi hands-on Prototyping (Focused Exp. Required)
* Field research, CI (Contextual Inquiry)
* User Testing Experience

This individual could have e-commerce experience but MUST have very strong
Application Design Experience; (not limited to corporate web site  or
shopping web site design) Excellent written and oral communication 
skills; Excellent problem solving and analytical skills.

Technical Skills Profile:

Required:

* JavaScript: (Intermediate to Advanced level); ability to hand code
  simple JS, and repurpose complex JS libraries.
* DHTML, CSS, in a production environment: (Advanced)
* Advanced Experience with Design applications DreamWeaver,
  Photoshop, Illustrator, Visio or similar tools exp. To do mockup web pages
* AJAX - Familiarity: The candidate should be cognizant of the
  latest trends in UI, i.e. AJAX/Web 2.0.
* Object Oriented Programming concepts

Pluses:

* EXT Framework, Dojo, Scriptaculous, as well as familiarity with
  XML are big pluses.
* AJAX/Web 2.0 Experience: High-end interactive design experience
  incorporating AJAX Web 2.0 technologies
* Experience with Product Development; Strongly preferred


Detail Elaboration for Profile and Environment

Technical Knowledge needed:

* HTML -- Intermediate to Advanced knowledge -- Required
* DHTML -- Intermediate to Advanced knowledge -- Required
* CSS -- Intermediate to Advanced knowledge -- Required
* JavaScript -- Intermediate to Advanced knowledge -- Required

JS Frameworks:

* Scriptacuous -- Knowledge of to Advanced knowledge -- Nice to have
* EXT -- Knowledge of to Advanced knowledge -- Nice to have


Design Experience
Must Have:

* Excellent "conceptual" design skills, be able to "design on the fly". *
Ability to take spoken and written requirements and create
Interaction Designs and User Interfaces from these requirements.
* Excellent layout skills. Know proper usage of white space,
contrast, consistency, precedence, and gestalt principles.
* Intermediate Graphics skills. Be able to make reasonable icons and
knowledge to use colors correctly.
* Ability to create optimal screen flows.
* Taxonomy development.
* Flow Chart development.
* Web 2.0/Ajax design.
* Design for Enterprise Web Applications.

Prototyping(intermediate to expert level, required)

* Whiteboard Prototyping
* Paper Prototyping
* HTML Prototyping
* Lo-fi Prototyping
* Mid-fi Prototyping
* Hi-fi Prototyping

Project Management, Presentation abilities and General Knowledge,(all
skills are required at Senior level):

Must Have:

* Ability to present and discuss complex interactions, with and
  without prototypes, to a variety of stakeholders.
* Guide discussions in order to achieve optimal UI and Usability. * Be the
User Interface/ Interaction Design Expert.
* Understand and work within dynamic timelines.
* Be flexible with changing requirements and feedback.
* Elicit and interpret requirements from stakeholders in order to
  achieve successful and optimal UI.
* Have a sense of humor and don't take feedback personally.
* Designing in full SDLC.
* Basically be plea

Re: [IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?

[J. Ambrose Little]

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Jared M. Spool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On May 3, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
>
> Sorry Jared, unless you cite people who've told you otherwise, I'm not
> > buying it. I've never heard anyone in the software industry ever make the
> > claim they makes things complicated on purpose.
> >
>
> Sorry to break it to you Andrei,  but just because *you* haven't seen it
> doesn't mean it doesn't exist. :-)
>
> I'll chime in and say I know a smaller company that builds community
software that follows this model, sort of.  They don't intentionally make
things obscure, they just don't make efforts to make it easy.  It seems to
me that any moderately feature-rich software will inherently evolve towards
complexity, so unless efforts are made to keep it simple and usable, it will
naturally become difficult and arcane.

The thing is, lots of software is built with an engineering mindset, where
complexity is not necessarily seen as a bad thing (or even recognized as
complex).  So lots of software has been built that is complex by default, in
a sense.  And some companies do recognize this and rather than investing in
design and usability, they use it as an opportunity for revenue, sometimes
the only source of revenue.

--Ambrose

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?

[Scott Berkun]

The thing missing from this thread is that there are many possible reasons
why any given design is complex - everyone is right at least some of the
time.

To sum up the points made so far here, software is complex because at least
one of the following occurs:

1. Some users need complex control and the designers decided those were
important users.
2. The makers are lousy designers: they don't know any better.
3. The makers believe they profit from complexity and do it primarily for
that reason.
4. Engineering or business constraints make a simpler design more difficult
than outsiders assume.
5. Makers had poor designs in early versions that users acclimated to and
even though the makers know better now, they're reluctant to force their
die-hard users to relearn things.
6. Complexity is gradually added over time and the otherwise competent
designers don't realize they've lost their way until its too late.

And of course in many cases there are competing forces at work within a
single company over the design, and while some designers, marketers or
engineers are working to reduce complexity, others are not. It's always easy
as outsiders to assume there is one single person to blame at some other
company for all that's wrong, or that all the people on a particular project
were homogeneous in mind, despite knowing from our own experiences how rare
that's the case.

As one example, I've seen teams desperately trying to reduce complexity, but
sometimes failing, and a seperate group in the same company responsible for
training on that product profiting from those failures. So yes, I suppose
the training group did in a way hope for more complexity, but the designers
and engineers on the actual product were committed to work against it.

-Scott

Scott Berkun
www.scottberkun.com

- Original Message - 
From: "Jared M. Spool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Andrei Herasimchuk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "UI List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 5:04 AM
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?


>
> On May 3, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
>
> > Sorry Jared, unless you cite people who've told you otherwise, I'm
> > not buying it. I've never heard anyone in the software industry ever
> > make the claim they makes things complicated on purpose.
>
> Sorry to break it to you Andrei,  but just because *you* haven't seen
> it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. :-)
>
> Before I started UIE, in the mid-80s, I first encountered this
> attitude at a company called Autographix, which made presentation
> systems (before the days of Harvard Graphics, Aldus Persuasion, and
> long before MS Powerpoint). They sold their software/hardware solution
> practically at cost and made all of their money on training and
> support, particularly on user certification. (Certified users could
> get a 20-30% salary increase because the system was so arcane.)
>
> I was working on a small skunkworks project to produce a pc-based (DOS/
> CGA) what-you-see-is-what-you-get slide editing system. It worked
> pretty well too. When we presented it to mgmt, we were told that the
> company wasn't set up to sell software that didn't require training.
>
> After I started UIE, I ran into several clients with this perspective.
> In the early '90s I ran into a typesetting company that was in a
> similar situation. (The name is escaping me right now, but they were
> based out of Wakefield, MA.) They sold to magazines and newsletters
> and made a ton of revenue through their training and support. Their
> users also benefited from the certification by commanding higher
> salaries that non-certified page setters. Certified users produced
> pages faster than the best users of other systems, so the customers
> (newspaper owners) saw the benefit of the ecosystem too. They did
> everything they could to keep certification high.
>
> At the same time, we did a set of studies for a company in Newton, MA
> that made fire alarm systems for large building complexes. Again, they
> basically gave their systems away without a profit and made all their
> money on support contracts and training. We actually conducted
> usability tests on "layman" doing typical tasks. If the layman
> (without support certification) could complete the tasks, we had to
> *change the design*.
>
> There were many product managers at WordPerfect, Lotus, and Novell
> that had the if-we-make-it-too-easy-we'll-erode-our-market philosophy.
> I've also met groups at MS and IBM that had a similar attitude.
>
> One that stands out in my mind (and which you may be familiar with)
> was MetaCreation's Kai's Power Tools and Bryce. While the designer Kai
> Krause was a fan of hiding complexity, the tools had a huge learning
> curve. There was at least one version that hid functionality from
> users until they proved they could master the functions already
> provided, then it slowly revealed new functionality, much like video
> game.
>
> By the way, a lot of this comes from people who d

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Kontra]

Jared M. Spool:
>  I have to admit, I have no idea what we're actually talking about here. If
> you could elaborate why we're talking about this, that might help me.

>From my POV, strategy of timing and baseline testing.

The reason I objected to the characterization of Apple talking to
Verizon (and presumably others) as a 'bidding war' is that we don't
know why exactly Apple talked to Verizon. (Just as we don't quite know
why MSFT abandoned its pursuit of Yahoo. It may be yet another Ballmer
fumble that we've become accustomed to or a tactical move to depress
Yahoo's price for a later takeover. We don't know.)

But I can appreciate why Apple may have wanted to start conservatively
with the largest carrier in the U.S., and offer a GSM-only,
US-centric, one-carrier, 2G, etc., device. That's the baseline. As a
company that has never before played in the cell phone industry, it
needed market and consumer behavior data. Now it has that.

Multiple carriers -- at the start -- would have enormously complicated
that baseline understanding. Just as, for example, having dorky Java
or random Flash interfaces would have when Apple wanted to establish a
coherent, multi-touch gestural interface that neither offered.

"Bidding war" suggests that Apple had an iPhone that was both GSM
(AT&T) *and* non-GSM (Verizon), and that the company would forego such
highly appreciated UX features like visual voice mail or iTunes
activation, which carriers didn't offer and thus had to be built.

By way of relevance, baseline testing is often very difficult for
designers to pull off. They often 'test' for way too many
(interdependent) variables *simultaneously* to extract any useful
meaning: there's no baseline. As in, did Apple's multi-touch gestural
interface fail because Apple did an inadequate design job or because
the presence of Java and Flash corrupted the baseline understanding?

-- 
Kontra
http://counternotions.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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 4, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Kontra wrote:

It seems to be true that Apple approached several of the telcos.  
All but
Cingular (including, initially AT&T) turned them down almost  
immediately,

from all reports.


Even if this were true, it says nothing about what exactly Apple's
business strategy actually was. It could easily have been a 'fact
finding' mission for example, as opposed to a 'bidding war' Apple
wasn't quite prepared to play at the time.


I have to admit, I have no idea what we're actually talking about  
here. If you could elaborate why we're talking about this, that might  
help me.


Jared


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Kontra]

Jared M. Spool:

> It seems to be true that Apple approached several of the telcos. All but
> Cingular (including, initially AT&T) turned them down almost immediately,
> from all reports.

Even if this were true, it says nothing about what exactly Apple's
business strategy actually was. It could easily have been a 'fact
finding' mission for example, as opposed to a 'bidding war' Apple
wasn't quite prepared to play at the time.

>  I don't know if you'd call this 'losing'. I just call it a business
> strategy that didn't quite pan out.

: -) Please see above.

-- 
Kontra
http://counternotions.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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 4, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Kontra wrote:


Apple had hoped to get the telcos in a bidding war.


Is there any evidence to this at all, beyond mere pundit speculation?

Apple's AT&T partnership is not the result of 'losing' in a telco  
'bidding war.'


It seems to be true that Apple approached several of the telcos. All  
but Cingular (including, initially AT&T) turned them down almost  
immediately, from all reports.


In several reports, it is repeated that Jobs had hoped to get Cingular  
to move quicker or find a better deal by playing more than one company  
off of each other. But, because they turned him down, he was stuck  
with working on Cingular's time schedule.


I don't know if you'd call this 'losing'. I just call it a business  
strategy that didn't quite pan out.


And, as we see by the explosive growth of the iPhone market, the  
boards of the other telcos are probably questioning their original  
decisions.


Jared


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Jeff Axup]

Regarding the Verizon comment, here is the source:
"At one point, Jobs met with some executives from Verizon, who promptly
turned him down. It was hard to blame them. For years, carriers had charged
customers and suppliers for using and selling services over their
proprietary networks."
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone?currentPage=3

It is probably safe to say that Apple pushed the limits of
telco/manufacturer contractual agreements with this deal. The upside is that
Apple did get to call the shots on a lot of the customer experience and
inter-company functionality. The downside is the network and the 2 year
lock-ins. This is hopefully just a small first step towards an environment
with more flexible telco contracts/networks. It was probably too early to
have a bidding war, since only ATT was smart enough to take the risk of this
type of contract. Next time around it may be different.

-Jeff

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Kontra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Jared M. Spool:
>
> >  Apple had hoped to get the telcos in a bidding war.
>
> Is there any evidence to this at all, beyond mere pundit speculation?
>
> Apple's AT&T partnership is not the result of 'losing' in a telco 'bidding
> war.'
>
> I'm sure Apple tried many scenarios and talked to many providers.
> Heck, they even filed for elaborate MVNO patents. Talking to telcos
> isn't the same thing as a bidding war on a finished product. Bidding
> war would have likely implied non-GSM *and* GSM phones, inability to
> affect things like visual voice mail, iTunes activation, etc. It's
> important to note that telco bidding war may be Apple's second (or
> perhaps third) round strategy, starting with the next version of the
> iPhone.
>
> --
> Kontra
> http://counternotions.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
>



-- 
Thanks,
Jeff

Jeff Axup, Ph.D.
Principal Consultant, Mobile Community Design Consulting, San Diego

Research: Mobile Group Research Methods, Social Networks, Group Usability
E-mail: axup  userdesign.com
Blog: http://mobilecommunitydesign.com
Moblog: http://memeaddict.blogspot.com

"Designers mine the raw bits of tomorrow. They shape them for the present
day." - Bruce Sterling


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Kontra]

Jared M. Spool:

>  Apple had hoped to get the telcos in a bidding war.

Is there any evidence to this at all, beyond mere pundit speculation?

Apple's AT&T partnership is not the result of 'losing' in a telco 'bidding war.'

I'm sure Apple tried many scenarios and talked to many providers.
Heck, they even filed for elaborate MVNO patents. Talking to telcos
isn't the same thing as a bidding war on a finished product. Bidding
war would have likely implied non-GSM *and* GSM phones, inability to
affect things like visual voice mail, iTunes activation, etc. It's
important to note that telco bidding war may be Apple's second (or
perhaps third) round strategy, starting with the next version of the
iPhone.

-- 
Kontra
http://counternotions.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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPhone 2.0 Game Over? I think not!

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 3, 2008, at 11:50 AM, dave malouf wrote:


How do you know that Verizon didn't
turn down Apple first?


Verizon *did* turn Apple down. It was Apple's first choice, but they  
laughed Jobs out of the boardroom.


When the iPhone was released, Verizon issued a press release saying  
that Apple had approached them first and they were proud of not saying  
yes because they felt it was a bad deal for both Verizon customers and  
shareholders. Their rationale was that the level of service demanded  
by Apple was unreasonable. (My understanding was the primary sticking  
point was that Apple would activate and service the phones from their  
own retail outlet, but I believe Apple was demanding too much money  
for each contract.)


Apple had hoped to get the telcos in a bidding war. They approached  
several simultaneously. Cingular was the only one that gave them any  
attention. It took 18 months to negotiate the deal with Cingular,  
partly because AT&T acquired them in the middle and negotiations had  
to start over.


[This came from several business articles documenting the iPhone's  
development, including one that appeared in Wired a few months back.  
I'm currently at 30,000 feet and not online, so I don't have citations  
(sorry, Andrei), but you can find the articles amongst my delicious  
links -- http://del.icio.us/jmspool -- probably tagged with something  
clever like Apple or iPhone. I used them as readings for my Experience  
Design Management class for Tufts.]


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] side bar: safari

[Chauncey Wilson]

Hello Mark,

Could you describe where you think that your experience with Safari
has degraded?  I haven't had any particular issues with Safari on my
Mac.

Chauncey

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM, mark schraad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A bit off topic, but has anybody else notice a continuously degraded safari
> experience? Not sure if it sine the iPhone or Windows versions cam about,
> but it certainly seams more problematic in the last years or so. Or is it
> just me?
> 
> 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

[IxDA Discuss] side bar: safari

[mark schraad]

A bit off topic, but has anybody else notice a continuously degraded  
safari experience? Not sure if it sine the iPhone or Windows versions  
cam about, but it certainly seams more problematic in the last years  
or so. Or is it just me?


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Designing for Specific Audiences- in this case Finance

[Gloria Petron]

I have a few questions to add to Harry's:
- Are your applications client-facing or employee-facing (or a blend of
both)?
- Are you on an agency/consultant side, or are you a part of an in-house
design team?
- What is your relationship with the I.T. developers who will be building
the solution?
- Is the solution you're working on web-based since birth, or is it a
migration of a green-screen application to a web-based format?

Here's an energy pellet for the learning curve: read *The Inmates Are
Running the 
Asylum*,
by Alan Cooper, a former programmer who does a great job of de-constructing
the manner in which software development typically plays out. He explains
successes & failures, the mindsets of upper management and programmers, and
the obstacles you can expect to encounter. You're going to be in for a bumpy
ride anyway, but this book can help explain the bumps.

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

[IxDA Discuss] IxDA meet ups in Savannah?

[Janna Hicks DeVylder]

Hi all,

Searching for "IxDA" and "Savannah" yields a lot, but not exactly what I'm
looking for right now.  Have there been any local IxDA meet ups in Savannah
(outside of the conference)? Is there interest in starting something? I'm
moving there in August from Chicago and would love to connect to the
community there.  Contact me off list, let's chat!

janna

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?

[Jared M. Spool]

On May 3, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

Sorry Jared, unless you cite people who've told you otherwise, I'm  
not buying it. I've never heard anyone in the software industry ever  
make the claim they makes things complicated on purpose.


Sorry to break it to you Andrei,  but just because *you* haven't seen  
it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. :-)


Before I started UIE, in the mid-80s, I first encountered this  
attitude at a company called Autographix, which made presentation  
systems (before the days of Harvard Graphics, Aldus Persuasion, and  
long before MS Powerpoint). They sold their software/hardware solution  
practically at cost and made all of their money on training and  
support, particularly on user certification. (Certified users could  
get a 20-30% salary increase because the system was so arcane.)


I was working on a small skunkworks project to produce a pc-based (DOS/ 
CGA) what-you-see-is-what-you-get slide editing system. It worked  
pretty well too. When we presented it to mgmt, we were told that the  
company wasn't set up to sell software that didn't require training.


After I started UIE, I ran into several clients with this perspective.  
In the early '90s I ran into a typesetting company that was in a  
similar situation. (The name is escaping me right now, but they were  
based out of Wakefield, MA.) They sold to magazines and newsletters  
and made a ton of revenue through their training and support. Their  
users also benefited from the certification by commanding higher  
salaries that non-certified page setters. Certified users produced  
pages faster than the best users of other systems, so the customers  
(newspaper owners) saw the benefit of the ecosystem too. They did  
everything they could to keep certification high.


At the same time, we did a set of studies for a company in Newton, MA  
that made fire alarm systems for large building complexes. Again, they  
basically gave their systems away without a profit and made all their  
money on support contracts and training. We actually conducted  
usability tests on "layman" doing typical tasks. If the layman  
(without support certification) could complete the tasks, we had to  
*change the design*.


There were many product managers at WordPerfect, Lotus, and Novell  
that had the if-we-make-it-too-easy-we'll-erode-our-market philosophy.  
I've also met groups at MS and IBM that had a similar attitude.


One that stands out in my mind (and which you may be familiar with)  
was MetaCreation's Kai's Power Tools and Bryce. While the designer Kai  
Krause was a fan of hiding complexity, the tools had a huge learning  
curve. There was at least one version that hid functionality from  
users until they proved they could master the functions already  
provided, then it slowly revealed new functionality, much like video  
game.


By the way, a lot of this comes from people who do a surface analysis  
on what makes games popular. In gaming, you can't have it be too easy.  
There is a requirement, for a successful game, for select users to  
have mastery that most users don't. In my experience, managers who  
promote the if-we-make-it-too-easy-we'll-erode-our-market philosophy  
often cite the success of video games as a rationale.


If I thought about it harder, I could probably come up with more folks  
I've run into in the last 30 years with this attitude. I've never seen  
the strategy work, but that doesn't keep it from emerging from people  
who are trying to be a little too clever (and avoiding the hard work  
to rethink overly complex designs).


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] can we make it to easy?

[James Nick Sears]

On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 8:10 PM, dave malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know anything about flight control panels, but UNIX
>  (including Linux) has had a design akin to fraternity hazing from the
>  beginning. There was always a right of passage associated with
>  learning VI and EMACS for anyone who dared. I'm sure that has
>  changed recently as GUI is a lot more common in UNIX systems. But
>  back in the 80's when I started on computers in college on Sparcs &
>  SunOS, it was common to see people flaunt w/ bravado their knowledge
>  of VI and EMACS command line codes.

I'd argue that even this is not a case of intentional obfuscation, but
instead an extremely capable design implemented within the constraints
of very limited resources (no mouse, usability over remote terminal
connections).  After using GUI editors for a decade, sure, vi seems
almost humorously arcane, but in the recent past I've started to pick
up a few commands here and there, and compared to other command line
editors, it's extraordinarily powerful and reasonably well designed,
at least for a set of users who are used to the command line,
keyboard-only paradigm (again, user-friendly => who is the user, and
what is friendly to them?).

I'd also make similar arguments for the architecture of console
UNIX/LINUX as a whole.  The concept of modular command line apps
piping data from one to another is extraordinarily powerful and quite
user friendly for the user base at which it was aimed.  In fact there
are plenty of tasks still today that send me straight to iTerm on my
Mac.  And when you consider how well it all works and how powerful it
all is within the pre-GUI constraints, it's pure genius.

And finally, a set of users flaunting w/ bravado is not equivalent to
an intentionally complex design.  If you look hard enough, you will
find users of any app of meaningful complexity, from Photoshop to MS
Word to Mac OSX, flaunting their prowess with bravado.  This does not
mean that they are intentionally complicated or poorly designed.  It
simply means that their users are human and have egos in need of
stroking.  Perhaps for this reason, the users like a bit of complexity
with the app, but that still doesn't mean that complexity was a design
goal.

-n.

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Trying to educate my design team

[Alex Moseman]

Hi everyone,

This is a topic of great interst to me.  I work  for a great ad
agency that does some fantastic cretive work.  As a producer I am
responsible for standard project management issues, but  also tend to
be the liason betwee the account, creative and tech teams in trying to
help build the most succesful  projects .  Our group has been focused
on print and campaign mediums and is now making the move to more
interactive projects.  A number of great steps have been made in
hiring to push us more towards being a succesful interactive shop,
but IA, usability and understanding the technology and medium have
been some steep learning curves.  I  am part of the team and a
project lead, but don't have the ability to dictatestrategy, design
or creative.  Nor would I want to , but I want to help move our teams
in that direction.  I agree that lecturing does not work, and that
individuals have to want to come to understanding web principles
organically, but are their methods of helping open peoples eyes to
the benefits of IA and web standards that don't seem like beating
people over the head?  For example, buttons are our friends, web
brochures don't get read, users only interact with content they
understand and find useful, but won't explore for discovery sake, a
video on youtube does not a viral experience make, etc.  Any help you
can provide would be great.

Thanks,


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28641



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