Fwd: Whats the proper name for motor memory within interaction?

21 Nov 2006 - 12:30pm
7 years ago
5 replies
666 reads
.pauric
2006

Scaffolding!! bingo!!!

There isnt much we can do to existing systems. The D.C. for web is pretty
much defined and we have to build with existing structures as Dan pointed
out. However, every so often a device comes along and changes the rules of
the game, enter the Nintendo Wii. The scaffolding just changed shape, the
designers took a step back and built for D.C. thrash your arm through the
air to swing a tennis racket on screen (not A+B down down left (o;)

I have been pondering some choices on this portable oscilloscope I'm working
on. I chose a 4-way and A+B button format for a number of reasons,
primarily its a popular format: gameboy et al. There's a good chance that
the scope user market (home hackers) will have seen or played a console that
uses this physical layout - I've inadvertently used D.C. to make a design
decision.

Now, I'm trying to decide whether its more intuitive to make the A button
cycle though the modes and B performs actions such as capture, voice memo or
visa versa. I've decided that because most people are right handed they
will be holding the probe in their right and the actual scope device in
their left hand. I've placed the buttons within reach of the left thumb.
Now, which button is going to feel like its the natural primary button?
thats for the tips folks, I have a better understanding of how to make the
right choice.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

There have been quite a number of tests done with older populations where
they've found that the computer/keyboard/mouse design isn't intuitive, but
learned. They've seen people have pick up the mouse and hold it in the air
wondering what it does. Also, if one has never used a 2 button mouse (e.g.
Mac users), one may never know what that right button does when they come
across one!

Distributing cognition is something we, as humans, do to help us remember or
do things in our world. We, as designers, can build a "scaffolding" around
the user in our designs to allow them to distribute their cognition
(thinking, memory, etc.) more easily and do tasks faster/easier.

~Lisa
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

Comments

21 Nov 2006 - 1:46pm
Jay Morgan
2006

Hey, Pauric,

You seem really excited about this. Maybe too excited, so I'll offer some
caution as an attempt to deflate any irrational exuberance. My goal is to
erect some scaffolding that will support cautious optimism in your discovery
of cognitive science studies and cognitive phenomena...:)

Not everything you're thinking of in this flash of realization can be
labeled distributed cognition. Please be careful what you associate with
that term. First, read about it. Read about it somewhere other than
wikipedia, too, for your own good. Get a textbook on cognition or cognitive
science at a half-price/used bookstore and you'll get some good mileage out
of it.

There are several cognitive mechanisms and phenomena going on in each
instance of interaction. Trying to explain an interaction with one name
won't work. Not all of these phenomena apply to each type of interaction
you're thinking of. Feeling the phone keypad has some haptic
(touch-related) components. Scanning a UI has visual components. Those two
senses utilize different neural pathways. That means they do not share the
same rules of operation, they do not share the same memory stores, and they
do not share the same perceptive pathways.

Dave has a good point in that you already take advantage of these skills
when you design. Artisans have been mapping tools to human abilities for
centuries. One important trick is to not violate or abuse other cognitive
phenomena. There's a lot out there to criticize because so many businesses
can build hardware and software that doesn't map so well. You have to be
responsible about what you design and how. Most people just aren't being
that responsible. Getting a book on cognitive science, memory, or
perception & attention could open your eyes to a lot things that can
increase the impact and value of your work. Becoming aware of what informs
users' mental models and which perceptual pathways they leverage in certain
activities can help you become more responsible.

And, finally, thanks for sharing the formula to your ATM PIN. Can I borrow
your card?

On 11/21/06, pauric <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Scaffolding!! bingo!!!
>
>

--
Jay A. Morgan
jayamorgan at gmail

21 Nov 2006 - 2:15pm
DanP
2006

> Artisans have been mapping tools to human abilities for
> centuries. One important trick is to not violate or abuse other
> cognitive
> phenomena.

Hi Jay,

I have interest in artistic influences on cognition, but didn't fully
understand this point.: How do artisans apply the trick of not
abusing other cognitive phenomena? An example might explain it quickly.

Sorry if I've missed something obvious.

Regards,
-Dan

21 Nov 2006 - 2:16pm
.pauric
2006

Thank you Jay (mental note to self: dont get too excited about design (o;)

It is somewhat exiciting to first 'discover' a new aspect of a field that I
am passionate about and then to have the experts weigh in with advice. I am
but a low end UI hack and this topic certainly is the realm of better minds
than mine. That said, being a jack of all trades I do think there is
something I can take away from this topic and put in my toolbox. I do
appreciate that motor memory, distributed cognitition and cognitive
psycology as a whole are full blown fields in themselves. Putting the
discussion under one label really fell out of question about the PSP
interface. I'm under no illusions that I'm in way over my head, but its a
wonderful distraction from the more mundane tasks that acutally pay the
bills.

Speak of which, I'll gladly swap my ATM card for your shelf full of second
hand half price cognitive science books. I know which has more value (o;

and thanks for the grounding, appreciated - pauric

On 11/21/06, Jay Morgan <jayamorgan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey, Pauric,
>
> You seem really excited about this. Maybe too excited, so I'll offer some
> caution as an attempt to deflate any irrational exuberance. My goal is to
> erect some scaffolding that will support cautious optimism in your discovery
> of cognitive science studies and cognitive phenomena...:)
>
> Not everything you're thinking of in this flash of realization can be
> labeled distributed cognition. Please be careful what you associate with
> that term. First, read about it. Read about it somewhere other than
> wikipedia, too, for your own good. Get a textbook on cognition or cognitive
> science at a half-price/used bookstore and you'll get some good mileage out
> of it.
>
> There are several cognitive mechanisms and phenomena going on in each
> instance of interaction. Trying to explain an interaction with one name
> won't work. Not all of these phenomena apply to each type of interaction
> you're thinking of. Feeling the phone keypad has some haptic
> (touch-related) components. Scanning a UI has visual components. Those two
> senses utilize different neural pathways. That means they do not share the
> same rules of operation, they do not share the same memory stores, and they
> do not share the same perceptive pathways.
>
> Dave has a good point in that you already take advantage of these skills
> when you design. Artisans have been mapping tools to human abilities for
> centuries. One important trick is to not violate or abuse other cognitive
> phenomena. There's a lot out there to criticize because so many businesses
> can build hardware and software that doesn't map so well. You have to be
> responsible about what you design and how. Most people just aren't being
> that responsible. Getting a book on cognitive science, memory, or
> perception & attention could open your eyes to a lot things that can
> increase the impact and value of your work. Becoming aware of what informs
> users' mental models and which perceptual pathways they leverage in certain
> activities can help you become more responsible.
>
> And, finally, thanks for sharing the formula to your ATM PIN. Can I
> borrow your card?
>
> On 11/21/06, pauric < radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Scaffolding!! bingo!!!
> >
> >
>
> --
> Jay A. Morgan
> jayamorgan at gmail

27 Nov 2006 - 10:42am
Michael Micheletti
2006

I've heard (and used) the term "scaffolding" in development environments. It
refers to "code created in support of the real code". For instance, test
scripts, junits, dummy drivers, dummy data - code that you need to get the
job done but that you're not planning to ship. Thought you might be
interested in the alternate def - this is what developers may hear if you
use the term "scaffolding" with them.

Michael Micheletti

On 11/21/06, pauric <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Scaffolding!! bingo!!!
>
>

29 Nov 2006 - 9:53am
Rich Holman
2005

Not sure if this helps: http://www.palgrave.com/pdfs/1403911622.pdf

It's an introduction to a book titled: Rethinking Cognitive
Computationbased around Alan Turing's concept of cognition.

> Artisans have been mapping tools to human abilities for
> centuries. One important trick is to not violate or abuse other
> cognitive
> phenomena.

Syndicate content Get the feed