[IxDA Discuss] Affordances in interface design

[Mark Schraad]

Dave,

You and I are in agreement. Sorry I was so unclear.

Basically - I was trying to explain the rational for using literal artifacts and why it is inevitably problematic. I was also giving a fromula for how to move others away from the idea - by adding sufficient value in the new offering, so that the designer can overcome those existing schemas.

Mark



 
On Wednesday, March 07, 2007, at 09:54AM, "David Malouf" <dave.ixd at gmail.com> wrote:
>Mark are you agreeing or disagreeing?
>
>One problem with literal artifacts is that often they lead to visual
>distractions. so while they add temporary comfort, they do make the UI
>less legible.
>
>-- dave
>
>
>On 3/7/07, Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mar 7, 2007, at 6:44 AM, David Malouf wrote:
>>
>>
>> I would more simply answer your question that a spreadsheet tool
>>
>> doesn't need to look like a ledger, a bill pay too doesn't need to
>>
>> look like a checkbook, etc. In fact, I would stay clear from literal
>>
>> interfaces. They usually break down when you bring them over to the
>>
>> virtual.
>> Literal artifacts are typically embedded into the users schema. In order to
>> overcome the comfort and ease that artifact may provide you must deliver
>> something in return to provide value. Hopefully, the transition to a new
>> medium (in this case digital or remote) provides value to the user, and not
>> just the other stake holders. That value can be an easier process, a quicker
>> process, better results - or even the fact that they get to keep their job.
>> You will need to get rid of that artifact eventually - why not figure that
>> out now?
>>
>> Mark