Differnce between user interface and interactiondesign?

25 Jan 2008 - 6:52pm
6 years ago
17 replies
525 reads
Demers, Scott
2007

Hi, Folks --

I appreciate the responses to my question.

I liked Luis' definition:

"UI designer delivers the interface, the IxD plans it"

I think that would make sense to a .NET developer, who's used to
thinking in terms of "the user interface designer" (which, by the way,
is why I asked the question).

"... interface design differs from interaction design primarily in its
focus on the behavior of artifacts rather than the behavior of humans."

I especially like this one, but it would definitely require our
lunchtime conversation extend beyond an hour (not a bad thing, really).

" IxD is about behavior and interactions of the systems and products we
design. It is a horizontal design discipline that almost every other
design discipline has to engage with. it is the intangible part of the
the tangible form making design disciplines out there."

This one, as accurate as it may be, would have him shaking his head and
dismissing me as a complete flake. Considering the source, maybe not a
bad thing either :)

Cheers,

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Demers, Scott
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 6:06 PM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Differnce between user interface and
interactiondesign?

Hi, Folks -

Just curious how some of you would differentiate an interaction designer
from a user interface designer? Apologies if it's been discussed to
death before. Looked quickly on the discussion archive and didn't see
anything.

Cheers,

Scott DeMers

________________________________________________________________
*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

Comments

25 Jan 2008 - 9:02pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Scott, if this is who you're dealing with, this is how I would put
it.

the UI Designer, says, the button is left aligned, bevelled, has this
rollover, and that action state, and this disabled state.

The IxDer says how did the user even get to the page with the button,
why is the button necessary and what comes after the button is
pressed.

This is what I would say to my wife, or someone else who asks me what
I do for a living and really just doesn't get it.
The other trick ... In many many many environments this is the same
human being.

BTW, i'm not sure I buy that IxDs are not interested in human
behavior.

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25077

25 Jan 2008 - 11:58pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Jan 25, 2008, at 7:02 PM, dave malouf wrote:

> the UI Designer, says, the button is left aligned, bevelled, has this
> rollover, and that action state, and this disabled state.
>
> The IxDer says how did the user even get to the page with the button,
> why is the button necessary and what comes after the button is
> pressed.

Actually, an interface designer does the same as the interaction
designer by that definition as well. If the interface designer
*didn't* concern themselves with the behavior they'd be simply a
graphic or visual designer.

In fact, at most software companies, they have interaction and visual
designers combine their work to create the interface because there
has always been a distinct lack of people who can do both at the
level needed to ship professional software. But given that one is an
"interaction" designer and the other is a"visual" designer and what
they ultimately make is the "interface," logic dictates that an
"interface" designer would in fact do the job of both.

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422

26 Jan 2008 - 5:31am
Dave Malouf
2005

It seems Andrei, whether or not you are right, that the question was
already couched in terms of separating logic from presentation. The
person then wanted to know, how to tell an idiot how this works.
Titles be damned.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25077

26 Jan 2008 - 6:31am
Challis Hodge
2003

Here's a model describing the distinction between the roles. In
reality they are typically filled by 1 or 2 individuals.

http://www.challishodge.com/models_edequation.html

Note: the model is biased toward digital/interactive.

-challis

26 Jan 2008 - 10:56am
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jan 25, 2008, at 5:02 PM, dave malouf wrote:

> the UI Designer, says, the button is left aligned, bevelled, has this
> rollover, and that action state, and this disabled state.
>
> The IxDer says how did the user even get to the page with the button,
> why is the button necessary and what comes after the button is
> pressed.

For real?

Why must there be a difference?

Isn't this just a Yam/Sweet Potato thing?

Jared

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

26 Jan 2008 - 8:57pm
jstanford
2003

I'm with Jared. This is a ridiculous semantic distinction. Like there's some
mythical confused poor UI designer sitting in a cave who doesn't even know
to think about the whole interaction or like there's some interaction
designer who never gets into the details of buttons. Let's move on. :-)

On Jan 25, 2008, at 5:02 PM, dave malouf wrote:

> the UI Designer, says, the button is left aligned, bevelled, has this
> rollover, and that action state, and this disabled state.
>
> The IxDer says how did the user even get to the page with the button,
> why is the button necessary and what comes after the button is
> pressed.

For real?

Why must there be a difference?

Isn't this just a Yam/Sweet Potato thing?

Jared

26 Jan 2008 - 10:04pm
Troy Gardner
2008

To be contrarian, I routinely work with UI designers who take
wireframes (from an IA/IxD) and convert them to high fidelity comps
(primarily in photoshop but sometimes in illustrator).
They are thinking I need:
1) the whole page layout to be properly blocked and centered
2) whole ui to be consistent in feel, Rounded edges vrs square edges,
particular fonts. Colors in the ui need to compliment or contrast
sufficently with the the main video/game/etc.
3) themed inline with BrandX, BrandY, etc.

They are so immersed in the page by page metaphor,they often miss any
interactivity at all, be it modal, or tabs, or preloading. Almost
100% of the time don't think about hover or disabled states...I
frequently have to hound them to put them in.

So in that sense they are a truly UI designer.

Troy

On Jan 26, 2008 8:56 AM, Jared M. Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 25, 2008, at 5:02 PM, dave malouf wrote:
>
> > the UI Designer, says, the button is left aligned, bevelled, has this
> > rollover, and that action state, and this disabled state.
> >
> > The IxDer says how did the user even get to the page with the button,
> > why is the button necessary and what comes after the button is
> > pressed.
>
> For real?
>
> Why must there be a difference?
>
> Isn't this just a Yam/Sweet Potato thing?
>
> Jared
>
> Jared M. Spool
> User Interface Engineering
> 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
> e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
> http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
>

27 Jan 2008 - 5:26am
Stew Dean
2007

On 27/01/2008, Troy Gardner <troy at troyworks.com> wrote:
> To be contrarian, I routinely work with UI designers who take
> wireframes (from an IA/IxD) and convert them to high fidelity comps
> (primarily in photoshop but sometimes in illustrator).

That's not UI design - that's visual or graphic design.

User interface design is the designing of the interface which is what
you do when you do wireframes (in part collaboration with your
designers I presume).

Most people equate design to visual design so I can see why you use
that label - elsewhere it's not the same - the UI designer creates the
wireframes. But then I've never had any labeled UI designer working on
any project I've worked on. Interactive designers I've worked with and
are, as someone pointed out, often design and build guys who do flash
stuff, mostly at the microsite end of things in the UK new media
market.

--
Stewart Dean

27 Jan 2008 - 9:19am
Dave Malouf
2005

Yams and sweet potatoes do taste different and a real chef will cringe
at the thought of using one over the other. ;)

BTW, I do like that ... "Isn't that just a visual designer?" ...
Well yes, it is. It's a visual designer who is expert in interfaces,
as opposed to a visual designer who is expert in print, or graphics,
or iconography or packaging, or or or.

In the end, I agree with Jared in that this aspect of the discussion
is not meaningful.

Where it becomes more meaningful is not in the comparisons with other
practices, or with aspects of the same practice. Where it becomes
meaningful is in the long-term strategic building of a community of
practice around a growing discipline which cuts across many
practices. I.E. UI Designers would not do button layouts for a
cellphone, but an industrial designer with the aid of an interaction
designer. I've never seen a UI Designer in a 3D studio before,
except to help with the software that goes on embedded devices, not
the devices themselves and even then, b/c the same position usually
has to do the work on the devices themselves, the IxD does double
duty.

But my main point here is that people tend to fixate on their
experience and their current practices, as opposed to seeing a much
wider and holistic vision for a growing discipline. Interaction
Design has the most to offer the widest range of formative design
disciplines when we think of its gravitational center as being around
behavior and interaction among people, devices and services. Glomming
on form based pieces of the practice, or making IxD synonymous with
those form based pieces, degrades the specificity of interaction
design.

Why is this important? Because as of yet, we have not paid attention
to a true academic understanding of what actually interaction is from
a design perspective. This work is constantly put on hold by
practitioners who get caught up "in the work", or gets subsumed by
non-designer disciplines who don't understand the contextual need
for a design-centric approach to defining the discipline.

Our language for evaluation has been completely dictated by HCI and
Usability. Because of this, I get called into other people's
agencies all the time with the question, "How can I get my IxD group
to be treated as a strategic and creative part of the organization
parallel to visual design or industrial design?" Since we do have an
aesthetic based foundation that we can communicate with amongst each
other or among other design peers, the language we do use, leaves us
in the realm of those from a science-centric perspective, which is
more closely aligned with engineering.

How many people who work as innies (inside the corporate sphere) for
a technology company have their UX groups being managed by
engineering? Almost every group I've been in for the last 8 years
dotted lines through the SVP of Product Development. Now this isn't
about being the "C". Usually on this path it is through Product
Management (though sometimes directly through development). Is this
really where a design discipline can best be managed? It is just
meant as an example, not meant to be a complete and comprehensive
survey.

So yes, there are many places where UI Design and Interaction Design
are the same practice. There are other places where interaction
design and formative design are separated from each in bad ways
(non-collaborative) and good ways (partnered).

Those environments are so varied and distributed that we will never
come to agreement. But the fact that the yams and the sweet potatoes
ARE separated by some, says that the separation can be meaningful in
those organizations, ergo if it can be separated, it can be defined.

BTW, I'm really liking the analogy that a UI Designer is to pixels,
what Print Designer is to ink. Both are visual designers. But yes,
many do a lot more, ie. interaction design & typesetting, etc.

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25077

27 Jan 2008 - 2:08pm
Troy Gardner
2008

> That's not UI design - that's visual or graphic design.

It's a venn space, where these terms and people's skills are probably
pliable enough to make them general guidelines at best.

In the agencies I work with they are significant enough. When I say
the product is in "UI design" in these agencies it's past the point of
the IA's handoff of the wireframe and into a visual/graphic artists
hand. But in this case there are specific designers to do the work,
and specific designers that are not doing the work:

The pure graphic designers don't think in UI elements, they are purely
pixel pushers (90% of their time in photoshop). They are happy to make
every button look different. To contrast a UI designer will recognize
that there are at least some groupings of topNav/bottomNav that should
be consistent..they understand what a wireframe is.

Illustrators are thinking in curves and lines, trying to make every
element look like a piece of art. . They design icons, they are
obsessed with font kerning...without regard to what the text block
says or how that is similar to another nav element.

Motion designers (afterfx people) are thinking the same thing just in
time and 3d.

>
> User interface design is the designing of the interface which is what
> you do when you do wireframes (in part collaboration with your
> designers I presume).
>
> Most people equate design to visual design so I can see why you use
> that label - elsewhere it's not the same - the UI designer creates the
> wireframes. But then I've never had any labeled UI designer working on
> any project I've worked on. Interactive designers I've worked with and
> are, as someone pointed out, often design and build guys who do flash
> stuff, mostly at the microsite end of things in the UK new media
> market.
>
> --
> Stewart Dean
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
>

28 Jan 2008 - 4:58am
Adrian Howard
2005

On 27 Jan 2008, at 07:19, dave malouf wrote:
[snip]
> Why is this important? Because as of yet, we have not paid attention
> to a true academic understanding of what actually interaction is from
> a design perspective.

And that's important because?

> This work is constantly put on hold by
> practitioners who get caught up "in the work", or gets subsumed by
> non-designer disciplines who don't understand the contextual need
> for a design-centric approach to defining the discipline.
[snip]

Isn't the only way to figure out that need to get 'caught up "in the
work"'?

Cheers,

Adrian

28 Jan 2008 - 1:11am
samin
2008

Hello,

and greetings from Helsinki. As someone coming from web/visual design
background, I think this is a good topic for a first...:)

> The pure graphic designers don't think in UI elements, they are purely
> pixel pushers (90% of their time in photoshop). They are happy to make
> every button look different. To contrast a UI designer will recognize
> that there are at least some groupings of topNav/bottomNav that should
> be consistent..they understand what a wireframe is.

I feel this is something that shouldn't be generalized on the
discipline as a whole. Every graphic/visual designer involved making a
product, digital or physical _should_ be aware of the basic set of
rules and boundaries to play with. Visual hierarchy, flow,
navigational states... or a physical size of buttons, paper quality,
reading distance etc.

This has something to do with the whole paradigm shift that design
industry is facing with - there are lot of people out there with
traditional print background thrown into digital world, with
insufficient training to begin with.

> Illustrators are thinking in curves and lines, trying to make every
> element look like a piece of art. . They design icons, they are
> obsessed with font kerning...without regard to what the text block
> says or how that is similar to another nav element.

Regarding the bigger picture and perceived quality of the final
product, good typography is very important, as is good iconography.
Along with many other things, IxD involved - persons doing the actual
craft shouldn't miss this.

In the past the best interaction designers I've been honored work with
are quite visual - they understand the visual constraints set by
dimensions, space and movement and hence play nice with visual
designers, prototypers and other people to ensure the end result is
the best it can be. Even with bigger teams the best people tend to be
"fuzzy" – multidisclipinary to at least the extent they understand the
boundaries and possibilities set by other discliplines.

cheers,
sami

--
Sami Niemelä
sami.niemela at gmail.com
+358 50 528 9265

28 Jan 2008 - 7:13am
Dave Malouf
2005

Adrian, if all you do is the work, then who is setting up the criteria
and standards by which to evaluate it? Critique based on a shared
understanding of foundational criteria is at the core of what makes
for a successful design discipline. One that not only produces, but
can be shared amongst peers, evaluated, and described.

As I said in this message, a design discipline that is ONLY about
financial success is not much of a discipline if it is not moral and
aesthetic. It takes pause to come up with these standards of
evaluation.

What would an interaction designer be/do if they were part of X
school of design theory? How does IxD play into that? Should it? Can
it?

What makes up the clay that we form into interactions? Pixels & waves
(sound)? Plastic & metal? I don't think so. That is the form, not the
interaction. We mold time, metaphor, and physicality instead of line,
color, volume, texture and space.

Give a group of specialty print designers a layout to look at. They
may disagree on good vs. bad, but they will most likely be able to
use a language of aesthetics to communicate that reason. The best
I've seen our community do is to talk about usability. Usability at
best has a limited understanding of aesthetics and usually but not
always in practice puts function ahead of form or feel in their focus
of their evaluations.

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25077

28 Jan 2008 - 9:22am
SemanticWill
2007

Agreed Niemela:

>>They are happy to make
> every button look different.>

Wow. Greater ignorance of graphic design has never been uttered with such
impunity. Shame on you. You obviously have never worked with real visual
designers.

On Jan 28, 2008 2:11 AM, Niemelä Sami <sami.niemela at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> and greetings from Helsinki. As someone coming from web/visual design
> background, I think this is a good topic for a first...:)
>
> > The pure graphic designers don't think in UI elements, they are purely
> > pixel pushers (90% of their time in photoshop). They are happy to make
> > every button look different. To contrast a UI designer will recognize
> > that there are at least some groupings of topNav/bottomNav that should
> > be consistent..they understand what a wireframe is.
>
> I feel this is something that shouldn't be generalized on the
> discipline as a whole. Every graphic/visual designer involved making a
> product, digital or physical _should_ be aware of the basic set of
> rules and boundaries to play with. Visual hierarchy, flow,
> navigational states... or a physical size of buttons, paper quality,
> reading distance etc.
>
> This has something to do with the whole paradigm shift that design
> industry is facing with - there are lot of people out there with
> traditional print background thrown into digital world, with
> insufficient training to begin with.
>
> > Illustrators are thinking in curves and lines, trying to make every
> > element look like a piece of art. . They design icons, they are
> > obsessed with font kerning...without regard to what the text block
> > says or how that is similar to another nav element.
>
> Regarding the bigger picture and perceived quality of the final
> product, good typography is very important, as is good iconography.
> Along with many other things, IxD involved - persons doing the actual
> craft shouldn't miss this.
>
> In the past the best interaction designers I've been honored work with
> are quite visual - they understand the visual constraints set by
> dimensions, space and movement and hence play nice with visual
> designers, prototypers and other people to ensure the end result is
> the best it can be. Even with bigger teams the best people tend to be
> "fuzzy" – multidisclipinary to at least the extent they understand the
> boundaries and possibilities set by other discliplines.
>
>
>
> cheers,
> sami
>
> --
> Sami Niemelä
> sami.niemela at gmail.com
> +358 50 528 9265
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
-------------------------------------------------------
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

28 Jan 2008 - 1:58pm
Robert Hoekman, Jr.
2005

> Isn't this just a Yam/Sweet Potato thing?

There is *definitely* a difference between these two roles, but the fact is,
it doesn't matter. The job titles are used so randomly in the real world
that this White Tower hair-splitting simply won't make a difference.

There are people all over the place called "user interface designers" that
do visual design only, and ones who do some interaction design. There are
interaction designers all over the place that do user interface design and
don't do any of the more conceptual, product-definition stuff we normally
associate as part of an IxD's job.

And, of course, there are "web designers" who do all of this, because they
are a team of one and have no one else around to take on other roles.

Job titles are very often totally meaningless.

-r-

28 Jan 2008 - 2:11pm
SemanticWill
2007

>>Job titles are very often totally meaningless.

Amen. Can we just let this turd of a thread die?

Titles are meaningless. Anyone who thinks they will be taken more seriously
because of a title, or a proper understanding and general consensus of the
definition of a title relative to other competing definitions is silly - or
delusional. Having a stronly typed definition of interaction designer versus
interface designer will not make you either, and you won't make anymore
money. The only thing that defines you is not some title, but your skills,
knowledge, expertise, and reputation. If you don't have these - no amount of
bellyaching about the relative fluidity of titles will get you respect. I
know many product design/product development teams that have come to realize
the complete waste of time worrying about titles and definitions are - that
they have adopted the old Bell Laboratory habit - everyone gets the same
title "Member of Technical Staff." We did that at Kayak - because you should
derive self-actualization from your work - not what's printed on your
business card.

On Jan 28, 2008 2:58 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. <robert at rhjr.net> wrote:

> > Isn't this just a Yam/Sweet Potato thing?
>
>
> There is *definitely* a difference between these two roles, but the fact
> is,
> it doesn't matter. The job titles are used so randomly in the real world
> that this White Tower hair-splitting simply won't make a difference.
>
> There are people all over the place called "user interface designers" that
> do visual design only, and ones who do some interaction design. There are
> interaction designers all over the place that do user interface design and
> don't do any of the more conceptual, product-definition stuff we normally
> associate as part of an IxD's job.
>
> And, of course, there are "web designers" who do all of this, because they
> are a team of one and have no one else around to take on other roles.
>
> Job titles are very often totally meaningless.
>
> -r-
> ________________________________________________________________
> *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
> February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
> Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
-------------------------------------------------------
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------

29 Jan 2008 - 4:10am
Adrian Howard
2005

Hi Dave,

On 28 Jan 2008, at 05:13, dave malouf wrote:

> Adrian, if all you do is the work, then who is setting up the criteria
> and standards by which to evaluate it? Critique based on a shared
> understanding of foundational criteria is at the core of what makes
> for a successful design discipline. One that not only produces, but
> can be shared amongst peers, evaluated, and described.

Can't people do both?

> As I said in this message, a design discipline that is ONLY about
> financial success is not much of a discipline if it is not moral and
> aesthetic. It takes pause to come up with these standards of
> evaluation.

I'm not sure how you got the idea that financial success was the only
way I was judging things :-)

<aside>
That said, I'm not sure how do you apply moral criteria to define
IxD. For example, personally I would not work on developing products
for the gambling industry. However I certainly wouldn't argue that
the _very_ talented folk who create the user experience of the Vegas
cash-removal machines weren't doing damn fine interaction design /
usability / ia / whatever.

The APA ethics code don't define what psychology is, just what
ethical standards members of the APA need to have.

These are community and organisational issues. They're very
important, but I didn't think this was what we were talking about here?
</aside>

> What would an interaction designer be/do if they were part of X
> school of design theory? How does IxD play into that? Should it? Can
> it?

I don't know. How would it help me make better things?

We could talk more about that :-) Having come into the user
experience area from a development/cog-sci background I'm not really
familiar with different design schools.

Your description of studio work was really interesting - and matched
up with the way I've seen really productive groups work. I'd love to
so more discussion about the knowledge, skills and practices that we
can use from these areas.

> What makes up the clay that we form into interactions? Pixels & waves
> (sound)? Plastic & metal? I don't think so. That is the form, not the
> interaction. We mold time, metaphor, and physicality instead of line,
> color, volume, texture and space.

But without the pixels and waves, plastic and metal you don't have an
interaction. A form-free interaction is a nonsense - like a marble
free sculpture.

> Give a group of specialty print designers a layout to look at. They
> may disagree on good vs. bad, but they will most likely be able to
> use a language of aesthetics to communicate that reason. The best
> I've seen our community do is to talk about usability. Usability at
> best has a limited understanding of aesthetics and usually but not
> always in practice puts function ahead of form or feel in their focus
> of their evaluations.

Seems like we talk about more than usability - mental models,
scenarios, use cases, user stories, persona, hierachical task
analysis, ethnography, structured vs unstructured interviews,
cognitive walkthroughs, Fits' Law, etc. etc.

But I'm all for talking about more ways to practice the art. That
seems to be a more productive conversation than trying to define what
the art is :-)

Cheers,

Adrian

Syndicate content Get the feed