My fear is that aesthetics-over-usability could be interpreted by
others in that fashion, even though I know that's not what it means
to you.
Yes I think you are right but I think it pays to understand what that
really means.
Function is as important a part of the form and it's hard to
separate
Hopefully I'm not dragging the conversation back into the mud, but I
understand where both sides are coming from regarding #5. I have seen
fundamental changes in products that took them from dying in the
market to a a leading example in the field thanks to user
observations and usability tests. I
Not sure I see the contention between usability and aesthetics. Maybe
you could give an example from one of your experiences?
I see usability as a scalar attribute, measured from Extreme
Frustration to Extreme Delight. Efficiency and success rates really
only talk to the frustration
Hi Jared,
re: usability I said how I'm thinking of it. It is rooted in my
pretty broad experience of practice, my reading of peers case studies
(the ones they make available to me) and my listening to
presentations. It's all I got. I do not see anyone practicing the kind
of usability practice or
Dave - very glad you brought this thread back to the principles!
You said:
Clarity over simplicity - simple is as simple does. Be clear is
always required, simplicity is not always the goal, but
simplicity CAN aid in clarity
Which I thought was interesting because when I first read Thomas'
On Sep 20, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Dave Malouf wrote:
Hi Jared,
re: usability I said how I'm thinking of it. It is rooted in my
pretty broad experience of practice, my reading of peers case studies
(the ones they make available to me) and my listening to
presentations. It's all I got. I do not see
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Jared Spool jsp...@uie.com wrote:
I haven't really formulated principles this way, since my interest is more
in terms of critique and analysis of what's been done.
Now this is interesting to me ...
If critique analysis have different criteria for success or
richard, re: Craigslist
I would buy that appropriate aesthetics, if someone told me it was a
designed decision versus the outcome of lack of attention.
I think that historical context has done more to sway the success of
stuff like craigslist and MySpace (the example that demonstrates the
open
Dave,
Most of your list truly represent the way I approach design. Coming from an
Architecture background, terms like holistic, contextual, inclusive,
viable represent key values in an architect's endeavor. The same apply to
Industrial design and the like.
I wonder what is your perspective
I would add:
- Pragmatism over Idealization: design is not liberal arts, we have a
commitment to craft products that solve people problems within a finite set
of resources and plenty of constrains. At certain point during our design
process, efforts should be taken to understand the medium in
On Sep 19, 2009, at 12:02 AM, Gilberto Medrano wrote:
A beautiful interface that does not work becomes ugly. I am
with you
100% on giving aesthetics the relevance that some usability gurus
try to
diminish. I just think that aesthetics can be a vehicle of usability.
Good thing I'm not a
Gilberto, I totally agree w/ your take that aesthetics can lead to
usability and even the opposite, that usability can lead to
aesthetics.
Jared, it isn't absolutely a dichotomy and maybe, I'm using the
wrong terms.
While I agree that a beautiful interface that doesn't work (in some
ways) may
Good point! Aesthetics is really powerful and its effect on people's
emotions is instantaneous. Therefore the need to use it as an integral
component of the design (IMHO).
I would like to argue that there is an important emotional charge coming
from usability too. Perhaps in a much slower
Jarod
I am sorry you feel it is somehow disrespecting the work you and
others have been doing.
I don't think I am, it is not an all out attack on UCD proponents
but a critique of the practice of UCD in general.
You say that is has been proven that UCD delivers ROI but measured up
against what?
I like this thread because it made me realize I do not have an
articulated list of principles that I can point to. While I'm
working on that here's a couple of thoughts:
Give a crap and remember that nice people will have to use your
design to accomplish something--don't ruin their day and
On Sep 17, 2009, at 11:21 PM, Thomas Petersen wrote:
Just because I don't write a thousand blogposts and have podcasts
does not mean I don't know what I am talking about.
You're right.
That's not that reason that you don't know what you're talking about.
We can agree to disagree on this
Dave,
I like your list a lot, but I do wonder:
Aesthetics over usability - Beauty is more powerful than
functionalism
Why is this a dichotomy? Isn't it possible to have aesthetics and
usability? Beauty and functionalism? Why are you posing them as
mutually exclusive?
Jared
I am not trying to be arrogant if that is how it comes across then I
am sorry.
I am sure most people here could write a whole book (and some
probably have) about why usability testing is good. So why is it so
bad that I can write one about what is bad?
If it works for you then great.
I have
Uh...those are one and the same. For most people who are fully
experienced.
On Sep 16, 2009, at 11:20 PM, Thomas Petersen wrote:
Furthermore I have observed that those most avid defenders of UCD are
people with an academic background and not a design background
When I am talking about designers I am those who do the pixel work to.
Are you saying that most people doing UCD are both visual designers
and Interaction Designers?
That is not my experience. I wonder what the statistics would be here
on IxDA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thomas, I think you are basing your assessment of UCD on a version of
the process which involves users far too late, i.e. when the product
is already basically designed. Your solution to this is to involve
them even later, i.e. after the product is built. Why not involve
users during the early
Well it all of course depends on what type of project you are doing.
There are 4 main types of projects as far as I am concerned.
1. Redesigning an existing platform
2. Designing a new platform but something that there already exist
best practice and an audience for (i.e. a competitor to
By listening to what customers really want should have been By
listening to what customers really need
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=45640
On Sep 16, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Gilberto Medrano wrote:
@Jared: you mentioned value and arrogance, and yet I don't find
your last 2 entries as adding much value or being less arrogant.
How much Thomas charges for his work shouldn't be a criteria to
weigh the value of his ideas, nor is it
Hear, hear Jared. Very well put. The post to me almost seemed like it
was made to raise ire or to purposefully be controversial for the
sake of being so. This is why (with real work to tend to) IMHO it
warranted no real response as it seemed discourse was never the true
goal of the author and his
While I agree w/ Jared's assessment of point 5 and Fritz as well, I
do caution against throwing the baby out w/ the bat water.
The initial post was not so much, here's mine, fuck off, if don't
do it, but rather. here are my principles, what are yours and why are
they valuable to you based on
I agree with most of what you've said, but I wholeheartedly disagree
with #5. Usability testing is critical for those who are dealing with
large-scale web projects.
Everything gets tested at some point, even if it's at the point
it's released to the public. But at THAT point, you've invested a
Thomas,
I have to make a comment about point #5. In my experience, it's
often best to take an iterative approach to testing. Many times I
have found myself in the cycle of leaving a particular nagging issue
because the design team believes it's ok to leave it until the end.
Well, 9 times out
The process of repetitive testing, whereby the tester is doing the
same tests each day, is in my opinion not that useful. In my
experience this can achieve little to no positive result. What occurs
is the dev team gets unnecessary reports that clog up the development
cycle.
It's not the same
On Sep 14, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Thomas Petersen wrote:
I could write a whole book about why usability test and focus groups
are bad for you and your customers but I wont.
Wow. Someone has been doubling up on their arrogance pills today,
haven't they?
On Sep 16, 2009, at 2:08 AM, Thomas Petersen wrote:
And it's my claim that
the reason why UCD have so much weight today is because there are a
lot of academics who don't know how to actually design (i.e. making
a decision) so they need to take it into a process where they use
user input to
@Jared: you mentioned value and arrogance, and yet I don't find your
last 2 entries as adding much value or being less arrogant. How much Thomas
charges for his work shouldn't be a criteria to weigh the value of his
ideas, nor is it your business or mine.
What was your contribution in those two
Thomas: I think you are bringing up some interesting points. I don't agree
fully with all of them, but they are thoughtful. Being the design process a
subjective one, I consider Usability Testing a good way to evaluate the
design with people that will be using the product soon. I am pragmatic
Cc: Thomas Petersen; disc...@ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] What are your principles for making digital
products/services
@Jared: you mentioned value and arrogance, and yet I don't find your
last 2 entries as adding much value or being less arrogant. How much Thomas
charges for his work
:
From: Charles B. Kreitzberg char...@cognetics.com
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] What are your principles for making digital
products/services
To: 'Gilberto Medrano' gmedr...@gmail.com, 'Jared Spool' jsp...@uie.com
Cc: 'Thomas Petersen' t...@hellobrand.com, disc...@ixda.org
Date: Thursday, 17 September
What established knowledge?
I am not against testing, just against certain types of testing. I
can expand on why.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=45640
I would like to hear what principles different people use when making
digital products.
Here is a the most fundamental of mine:
1. Start simple, stay simple.
It cannot be said enough. Less is more much more, and there is a
very good explanation that it pays to understand.
If you do less you
37 matches
Mail list logo
