Recent Discussions

29 Jan 2004 - 4:44pm
0
9 years ago
1 reply
Andrew Otwell
2004

re: aesthetics and objectivity (was :: How to Get Into ... Best Job Title)

On Jan 29, 2004, at 10:52 AM, Todd R.Warfel wrote:

>> I would agree that Google is hardly a UI masterpiece from a visual
>> design perspective...

Why should it be? How and why might you change it?

One could say that Google, like eBay (and arguably like George W. Bush)
has a brand that explicitly minimizes sophistication and complexity.
Appearing not just straightforward, but a bit unsophisticated may in
fact be appealing to many users who equate subtle design with
"fancyness" or "highbrow".

andrew

29 Jan 2004 - 3:03pm
0
Todd Warfel
2003

Re: Is Design an Objective Pursuit?

Part of me wishes visual design wasn't typically seen as so subjective.
But then again, part of me enjoys that.

I don't honestly believe that its entirely one or the other, but a
balance of both. And that's not to give a copout answer. My background
is in art - visual design. But my education is in English and Cognitive
Psych. My PhD work is in Information Science (Communications/HCI). So,
for me personally, I can see both the aesthetic arguments and harder,
scientific evidence arguments. It's a tough balance.

29 Jan 2004 - 2:22pm
0
IdoShavit
2004

: interface vs interaction [was: How to Get Into ... Best Job Title]

This discussion, which seems to have hit a soft spot with many of us,
reminded me of something that I'm sure will put a smile on your face.
It is from around 4 years ago, when it was trendy in the design community to
oppose Jakob "Useit" Nielsen.

29 Jan 2004 - 2:10pm
0
9 years ago
1 reply
Bob Baxley
2004

Is Design an Objective Pursuit?

Todd,

So you and I are hearing different stories about Apple. My sources
however are a bit out of date so I'll defer to yours. Either way, I
think we can agree that the determining factor in Apple's success is
the creative vision and leadership of Mr. Jobs.

As for visual design, while I agree that it is generally equated with
style, that doesn't mean it has to be. It is up to us as a community to
educate our clients and consumers about the real value and meaning of
design.

29 Jan 2004 - 1:30pm
0
9 years ago
3 replies
Ted Booth
2004

Re: Education formal or informal or both

On the other hand, the benefits of 'going the academic' path as a way
to get into interaction design:
1) you get structured exposure to a wide range of concepts, techniques
and principles in a very short amount of time
2) you are challenged to learn, produce and explore in a much more wide
ranging and rigorous manner than in the commercial world
3) and, depending on your institution of choice, it can be *very*based
in practice, in the doing of the work, as well as knowing the theory
behind it
4) plus, you leave with a formal degree which generally gives you a leg
up over other job-seeker

29 Jan 2004 - 12:11pm
0
a h andrew
2004

Re: Menu caption design (Sandeep Jain)

Another option is to have a history window similar to
Photoshop's. Keep the menu name short (Either "Undo"
or "Undo Move"), but in the history window have a
longer description "Undo Move Zone A", using the
guidelines Jim outline below for the best terminology.

To "argue this with your engineering manager", you
might try to pointing to existing applications. Remind
them of how they don't like to see non-standard menu
names, or how unwieldy (or helpful!) a particular name
might be. Try to point to specific resources that back
you up.

29 Jan 2004 - 11:03am
0
9 years ago
1 reply
Dave Malouf
2005

Education formal or informal or both (was RE: RE: How to Get Into Interaction Design?)

I was wondering what peoople felt about academic vs. non-academic based
career approaches. Not is one better than the others, but it is so easy to
say "go to this school", but for those who are less academically oriented
what are the suggestions? And if the suggestions aren't as strong what could
we be doing as an organization to make such options more viable?

If I wanted to learn how to make/design a watch I don't think the first path
would be to go to school.

29 Jan 2004 - 10:42am
0
Todd Warfel
2003

Mutli-Inter-Disciplinary [was: How to Get Into ... Best Job Title]

To summarize so far:

1) (insert your favorite adjective here) Designers should have a
knowledge and appreciation for visual/graphical design, interaction
design, and information architecture
2) They should not favor one over the other, as that could bias the
product, which in turn would become flawed
3) There are individuals capable of great visual, interaction, and
information architecture, or any combination of these.

29 Jan 2004 - 1:25am
0
9 years ago
4 replies
Greg Petroff
2004

About using Architecture as a model

I read this list religously. Love the discussion even
if I almost never post.

The practice of Architecture seems to be popular model
to try and use to distinguish the emerging disciplines
in interaction design/ia/ucd etc.

There are some things to note when using architectural
practice as a model.

First it is mush more complex then most people
characterize. Most architects can produce structural
calcualtions at some level. Do they?

28 Jan 2004 - 6:37pm
0
9 years ago
36 replies
Terms:
Jim Hoekema
2004

: How to Get Into ... Best Job Title

++ Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

On Jan 27, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Jim Hoekema wrote:

> Keep in mind that IxD did not exist a few short years ago. That means,
> by
> definition, that everyone in the field came here from some "other"
> background!

I have to take exception to the first part of this statement. I've been
working in interface design for some 14 years now, and interaction was
always a component of it.

Syndicate content Get the feed