Evan Bell - Alpha

Evan_7_I

I think if people are able to customize their interface, it generates more interest for them in the product. Even if the look of the interface isn't the primary function of the product, I think if something is personalized, people will want to come back. As far as multitasking goes, I disagree with Saffer about the automatic spell check. I'm not so sure that would work correctly in certain situations. For example, sometimes when I'm trying to format something in Word on my own, Word decides it knows what I'm trying to do and formats it for me. Unfortunately, most of the time it is wrong. Of course, that could just be a Microsoft problmem. Until I'm convinced it could be done correctly, I'd rather just run a manual spell check.

Evan_6_I

If there's one chapter that I might refer back to the most, this might be it. Whenever I work on a project, the most difficult thing for me to do is working on the actual aesthetic design. I'm not as creative as I'd like to be when coming up with designs. At least this chapter will be able to guide me a bit and give me some suggestions.

I was intrigued by the "presence" interface that Saffer mentioned in the chapter, which would react to a person's presence. Dr. Dailey already mentioned one such interface on the iPhone, which dims its screen when it detects that you are talking on the phone. I can easily see this type of interface expanding to all the appliances in our homes. That way, all of the appliances in your house or even just a room would turn off if no one is in them in order to save energy.

Evan_5_I

It was interesting to read this chapter because I've used some of these diagrams or models to plan out a project. However, they were just to help me out. I never thought about actually using them to present to people as part of a proposal. Usually if I have have a project to do, I just do it. But when you think about it, after we graduate most of us will probably be required to present diagrams like the ones in the book to clients before we start working on getting the actual project done. I'd actually like to see this more in some of our classes. I know some classes require a proposal and/or beta versions of projects to be turned in (like Dr. Dailey's class). It might be a pain for students, but I think if more classes required it, we'd have more practice in how to present interfaces to people/potential clients who aren't as experienced with interaction design as we might be.

Evan_4_I

I liked the tips that Saffer gave for research. It's obvious he knows from experience what works and what doesn't. When we design something, we all probably think we know what works best and our peers might even agree with us. But that's the wrong mindset to take. Like Saffer wrote, we all need to let the people who will ultimately use what we design decide what works and what doesn't. This chapter really drove home for me the importance of research. I'll definitely conduct some user research on the flash site I end up designing for this class.

Evan_3_I

I thought the Poka-Yoke Principle was very interesting. I assumed that most plugs were designed the way they are out of function, i.e. a firewire plug-in is shaped the way it is because the wires inside the cable necessitate it to be shaped the way it is. Now that I know it's shaped that way to prevent people from plugging things into the wrong inputs, I'll never look at any plug the same way again.

I think the concepts of feedback and feedforward were also important concepts that Saffer addressed. And not surprisingly, Apple has embraced these concepts. For example, whenever you mouse over the dock on the bottom of the MAC OS, it gives you feedforward by increasing the size of the icon your cursor is over as well as displaying the name of the program over the icon. It then gives you feedback after you click on it by having the icon bounce. I think as Saffer continues to introduce concepts in the book, we'll find that Apple has embraced and utilized most of them throughout their products.

Evan_2_I

I think whenever we start a project we think about almost all of the approaches that Saffer mentions in the chapter. We probably use all or most of them, but I think we all end up orienting our work to the user. Saffer had user-centered design as one of the approaches, but I think that all of the approaches are user-oriented to a certain extent. The User-Oriented approach he described in the chapter is probably the extreme, where users usually decide pretty much everything. But users are usually who decide what sinks and what floats, no matter what approach is taken. Apple may not do any user testing or research, but if something goes wrong with one of their products, they'll come out with a new version based on user feedback.

Evan_1_Q

I thought the chapter was a very good introduction to the book. I think it's very interesting to read about the constant evolution of our communication devices, from smoke signals and cairns all the way to the telephones and the internet. And much like we probably think having an operator direct our telephone calls is pretty archaic --even though it was only a little over 30 years ago-- I'm sure the next generation will look at our iPhones, Bluetooths (Blueteeth?), and the current iteration of the internet and laugh at us ("You mean you have to use your hands? That's like a baby's toy!"). It just seems like interaction designers are making bigger leaps at a faster pace than they used to. Either that or "just a little tweak here, just a little tweak there" really does make a big difference.

And with all of our communication devices having increasingly easier to use user interfaces, more people are communicating with each other probably then ever before. The world is becoming smaller and smaller every moment. I think most of us can agree that having simple, easy-to-use interfaces is a good thing. And these are not just appearing in our communication devices, but in everyday devices as well.

My question is, is there such a thing as "too simple?" Some might consider simplification a dumbing down process or a way to avoid thinking or work. If things become too simple, are we headed towards a dystopian Idiocracy or WALL-E type of future where humans have simplified things to the point where there is almost no thought process involved and they barely have to do any work (and have become lazy, obese slobs as a result)?