Friday, May 15, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Inmates Are Running The Asylum
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Summary:
The Inmates Are Running The Asylum points out that programmers are running the show most of the time when it comes to designing how a user interacts with a program. The author shows that this will have negative consequences on the finished product. This could either be because the programmers are taking shortcuts when designing the interactions or, most likely, programmers misinterpret what would be best for the users.
Programmers tend to have a different mindset than average computer users. Programmers want power and control at the expense that an application could be more complex to interact with. Most people would rather give up the power to have a simpler interaction with a computer. Programmers do not understand this and it is a mistake to let them design the interaction. You need to bring in people who know how to design interactions.
Discussion:
While I like that this book pointed out that programmers are selfish when they program and tend to program what they would want in a program, I did not like that the book did not give much hope to programmers. Looking back, I can see that I usually assumed that what I thought was best for me would tend to be best for everyone. But looking forward, I would like to think that I can approach designs from a casual user's perspective now that I know to do that. I do not like that the author suggests bringing in interaction designers instead of teaching the programmers who are willing to learn.
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Summary:
The Inmates Are Running The Asylum points out that programmers are running the show most of the time when it comes to designing how a user interacts with a program. The author shows that this will have negative consequences on the finished product. This could either be because the programmers are taking shortcuts when designing the interactions or, most likely, programmers misinterpret what would be best for the users.
Programmers tend to have a different mindset than average computer users. Programmers want power and control at the expense that an application could be more complex to interact with. Most people would rather give up the power to have a simpler interaction with a computer. Programmers do not understand this and it is a mistake to let them design the interaction. You need to bring in people who know how to design interactions.
Discussion:
While I like that this book pointed out that programmers are selfish when they program and tend to program what they would want in a program, I did not like that the book did not give much hope to programmers. Looking back, I can see that I usually assumed that what I thought was best for me would tend to be best for everyone. But looking forward, I would like to think that I can approach designs from a casual user's perspective now that I know to do that. I do not like that the author suggests bringing in interaction designers instead of teaching the programmers who are willing to learn.
Journal of Experimental Psychology
Journal of Experimental Psychology
Paul M. Fitts
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Summary:
Mr. Paul Fitts, along with his Journal of Experimental Psychology, are responsible for Fitts' Law. Fitts' Law is a function that can predict the time it will take a person to move to a target area. Fitts' Law takes into account four variables: the start and stop time of the device being used to reach the target area (a), the inherent speed of the device (b), the distance from the start area to the target area (D), and the width of the target area (W). These all combine to reach the time it takes to reach the target area (T): T = a + b*log2(1 + D/W).
This formula was discovered by running multiple experiments in which participants were timed as they moved to a target area. Looking at the results from these experiments, Fitts found the trends that occurred and derived the formula.
Discussion:
I do not think I will ever pull out my Fitts' law formula and use it to see if a button in my user interface is big enough or a menu item is too far away. I will, however, remember the principles that come out of this: the bigger and/or closer a target is, the quicker and easier it will be to reach that target. It seems like this does not need a paper to be written to know that. It seems like it should be known to everyone through intuition. It is a very important concept though that I do not think I would have every consciously considered if I had not read this paper.
Paul M. Fitts
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Summary:
Mr. Paul Fitts, along with his Journal of Experimental Psychology, are responsible for Fitts' Law. Fitts' Law is a function that can predict the time it will take a person to move to a target area. Fitts' Law takes into account four variables: the start and stop time of the device being used to reach the target area (a), the inherent speed of the device (b), the distance from the start area to the target area (D), and the width of the target area (W). These all combine to reach the time it takes to reach the target area (T): T = a + b*log2(1 + D/W).
This formula was discovered by running multiple experiments in which participants were timed as they moved to a target area. Looking at the results from these experiments, Fitts found the trends that occurred and derived the formula.
Discussion:
I do not think I will ever pull out my Fitts' law formula and use it to see if a button in my user interface is big enough or a menu item is too far away. I will, however, remember the principles that come out of this: the bigger and/or closer a target is, the quicker and easier it will be to reach that target. It seems like this does not need a paper to be written to know that. It seems like it should be known to everyone through intuition. It is a very important concept though that I do not think I would have every consciously considered if I had not read this paper.
Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful
Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful
Don Norman
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Summary:
At the time that this paper was written, the CHI community focused on creating tools and interfaces that were centered around the user. This is seems that it would be in the best interest of everyone, after all, users are the ones who will be using the tools. However, Don Norman suggests that centering a design around a user will not always result in the best design. There are times when the design needs to be centered around activities.
Norman points out that some great designs that were created with the task as the center of the design of instead of the user. One of these examples is the famous automobile. Norman suggests that users will adapt to the tool, and in some cases this is preferable over the tool adapting to the user.
Discussion:
Another Norman reading. I liked it as usual, and am very grateful that it was wrapped up into 6 short pages. Like all of the other things he has written that I have read, I think the information is very useful. His recommendations should never be the sole source of guidance, but it will always be beneficial to consider everything he has had to say in the past.
Don Norman
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Summary:
At the time that this paper was written, the CHI community focused on creating tools and interfaces that were centered around the user. This is seems that it would be in the best interest of everyone, after all, users are the ones who will be using the tools. However, Don Norman suggests that centering a design around a user will not always result in the best design. There are times when the design needs to be centered around activities.
Norman points out that some great designs that were created with the task as the center of the design of instead of the user. One of these examples is the famous automobile. Norman suggests that users will adapt to the tool, and in some cases this is preferable over the tool adapting to the user.
Discussion:
Another Norman reading. I liked it as usual, and am very grateful that it was wrapped up into 6 short pages. Like all of the other things he has written that I have read, I think the information is very useful. His recommendations should never be the sole source of guidance, but it will always be beneficial to consider everything he has had to say in the past.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Ethnography Considered Harmful
Ethnography Considered Harmful
Crabtree et. al
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Summary:
The CHI community have been increasingly using ethnographies as a method of analyzing people and cultures with the intent of developing applications and interfaces that will better cater to the targeted demographics. The authors of this article suggest that the increased use of these ethnographies in addition to straying from the traditional methods of carrying out an ethnography is harmful to the CHI community and CHI projects.
Discussion:
This paper was difficult for me to understand. I had a hard time figuring out where the authors were coming from. It seems to me that it would be beneficial to know who you are developing interfaces and applications for. Even if the interface or application was not written entirely for the user, but for a task (like Don Norman suggests in Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful), I still do not see how it can be detrimental to know your users a little better.
Crabtree et. al
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Summary:
The CHI community have been increasingly using ethnographies as a method of analyzing people and cultures with the intent of developing applications and interfaces that will better cater to the targeted demographics. The authors of this article suggest that the increased use of these ethnographies in addition to straying from the traditional methods of carrying out an ethnography is harmful to the CHI community and CHI projects.
Discussion:
This paper was difficult for me to understand. I had a hard time figuring out where the authors were coming from. It seems to me that it would be beneficial to know who you are developing interfaces and applications for. Even if the interface or application was not written entirely for the user, but for a task (like Don Norman suggests in Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful), I still do not see how it can be detrimental to know your users a little better.
Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful
Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful
Saul Greenberg, Bill Buxton
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Summary:
It has been almost required by the CHI community to have usability evaluations on any project and the results of these evaluations are used to judge and rate any novel ideas presented by a project. The authors of this paper suggest that not only are these evaluations unnecessary at times, but it can even be detrimental to a project.
If an idea receives a bad evaluation in a usability study, it is pretty much dead in the water. This can kill a project before any novel ideas have really been fleshed out. There is no need to evaluate an idea before it has been fully developed. It has not reached its fully potential yet and, if the evaluations are bad, it will never reach that full potential.
There is also the chance that an idea, even if it is an improvement over the standard conventions can be poorly rated against the standard conventions in a usability evaluation because the users are already comfortable with the standard conventions. This will also kill a potentially great project because a usability evaluation was used.
Discussion:
I enjoyed this paper and fully understood what the authors were saying. If a project is directed by the numbers that are given to it in a usability evaluation, the developers of that project are prone to give up on it and call it a loss. This can be very detrimental when you consider the fact that, if the developers had spent a few more hours, days, or even weeks enhancing and polishing their novel ideas, it could have been a very successful project. This is not to say that usability evaluations are always harmful, sometimes they are still necessary. It will take discernment on the developers' part to properly decide whether or not an evaluation will be necessary or beneficial.
Saul Greenberg, Bill Buxton
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Summary:
It has been almost required by the CHI community to have usability evaluations on any project and the results of these evaluations are used to judge and rate any novel ideas presented by a project. The authors of this paper suggest that not only are these evaluations unnecessary at times, but it can even be detrimental to a project.
If an idea receives a bad evaluation in a usability study, it is pretty much dead in the water. This can kill a project before any novel ideas have really been fleshed out. There is no need to evaluate an idea before it has been fully developed. It has not reached its fully potential yet and, if the evaluations are bad, it will never reach that full potential.
There is also the chance that an idea, even if it is an improvement over the standard conventions can be poorly rated against the standard conventions in a usability evaluation because the users are already comfortable with the standard conventions. This will also kill a potentially great project because a usability evaluation was used.
Discussion:
I enjoyed this paper and fully understood what the authors were saying. If a project is directed by the numbers that are given to it in a usability evaluation, the developers of that project are prone to give up on it and call it a loss. This can be very detrimental when you consider the fact that, if the developers had spent a few more hours, days, or even weeks enhancing and polishing their novel ideas, it could have been a very successful project. This is not to say that usability evaluations are always harmful, sometimes they are still necessary. It will take discernment on the developers' part to properly decide whether or not an evaluation will be necessary or beneficial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)