[IxDA Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 38, Issue 28

[Eugene Chen]

I've encountered this kind of quandry myself in design projects. I believe
there is an as yet unamed factor, that I'll call "interaction style" for the
moment (back to the aesthetics discussion).

The thing is either interaction style may be a valid proposition, however,
once the designs are carried through they can't easily be compared (through
testing say) because at that point you'd be comparing apples and organges.
It is like comparing a house built in a minimalist zen style and one made
into a luxurious garden and asking which is more beautiful. 

I think the important is to carry through confidently with a single style
and not mix and match in design by committee. That way it has internal
coherency, will attract a certain section of audience (and repulse others),
and work well for that audience. 

The question becomes not so much one of usability, but rather *choice* --
what kind of audience and what kind of interactions do you *want* to
support? 

- Eugene



Eugene Chen  |  User Experience Research, Strategy and Design
mobile 415 336 1783  |  fax 240 282 7452 
web http://www.eugenechendesign.com  |  aim peastulip  |  skype eugene-chen





> Message: 27
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:32:03 -0800
> From: "Brian Herzfeldt" <bherzfeldt at gmail.com>
> Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Should we expect more effort from our users?
> We are examining 2 strategies for a business directory site 
> with the usual
> 'enter a business name or category' or pick one from a canned list.
> 
> 
>    1. Refine at the Landing Page-Limit the Universe - Make the user do
>    more up front on the landing page to tell the system what 
> they want before
>    they receive a set of results in the hope that the result 
> set returned will
>    have what they want . . . hopefully first in the list. May 
> not always work
>    and requires a lot from the system and taxonomy.
>    2. Always Give them the Universe- user can enter any term and the
>    system will return *everything* it has that's relevant. 
> Then provide
>    useful and intuitive (hopefully) tools and taxonomies to 
> find what they
>    want. Requires more cognitive effort from the user.
> 
>