OSD

10 Mar 2004 - 10:22am
10 years ago
20 replies
663 reads
CD Evans
2004

Here's a nifty new thread for talking about Open Source Design as a
design model.

(Not as a part of open source programming)

Comments

10 Mar 2004 - 10:24am
Dave Malouf
2005

Would the THE project by Jeff Raskin be an example of this?
http://humane.sourceforge.net/the/

Can you explain a bit more about what you mean by open source design?
Would it be taking a methodology like goal-directed or contextual and making
that open?

Is it like JJG's visual vocabularly?
http://www.jjg.net/ia/visvocab/

All the above? None of the above?

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of CD Evans
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:22 AM
To: Interaction Discussion
Subject: [ID Discuss] OSD

Here's a nifty new thread for talking about Open Source Design as a design
model.

(Not as a part of open source programming)

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

10 Mar 2004 - 11:19am
CD Evans
2004

THE is a bit too code oriented to be called Open Source Design, but
JJG's visvocab is definitely in the OSD park.

What we need is to establish some 'open protocols' that we can
collaboratively design with. This comes as a natural reaction to what
has been already said here on integrating design into Open Source
Programming:

" There is no room in their gang for people who cannot code."

We need to have a way of designing that works alongside their way of
coding, not against it.

OSD could essentially be a way of designing that uses the open source
philosophy to design better, in teams, just as OSP does for developing
better code.

CD

On 10 Mar 2004, at 16:24, David Heller wrote:

> Would the THE project by Jeff Raskin be an example of this?
> http://humane.sourceforge.net/the/
>
> Can you explain a bit more about what you mean by open source design?
> Would it be taking a methodology like goal-directed or contextual and
> making
> that open?
>
> Is it like JJG's visual vocabularly?
> http://www.jjg.net/ia/visvocab/
>
> All the above? None of the above?
>
> -- dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-
> bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
> com] On Behalf Of CD Evans
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:22 AM
> To: Interaction Discussion
> Subject: [ID Discuss] OSD
>
>
> Here's a nifty new thread for talking about Open Source Design as a
> design
> model.
>
> (Not as a part of open source programming)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

11 Mar 2004 - 8:17am
CD Evans
2004

Design is modular just as code is. A widget from one thing can be used
in another, and the same goes for structures and so on. The point is
that the development world has made some major strides with open source
and we should use the model for design as well.

Perhaps it is the label that is throwing people off, would it be better
labeled something else? Is Open Source the right term?

We need a format for exchanging and building on each others designs.
Until then the open source community will just laugh at us for being
old fashioned.

'Source' refers to the source code, so what is the basis of Design that
can be shared and edited? Open 'File'? Open 'Format'? Open 'Element'?

KIndly
Cd Evans

ps. Yes I'm using threads.. they are still messed up.. it's in mail on
panther. I'd send them a design update.. but we haven't got a open
design format yet. ;-)

On 10 Mar 2004, at 18:25, Mark Canlas wrote:

> For a second I was wondering what you were referring to... Do you
> happen to
> use a mail client that supports threads? If so, what is it? I,
> however, am
> threadless.
>
> Anyway, that's a weird topic. If there's an open source software
> equivalent
> to design... Since OSS seems to be about the code, as someone eluded
> to...
>
>
> Mark Canlas
> http://www.htmlism.com/mark/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CD Evans [mailto:clifton at infostyling.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:23
> To: Mark Canlas
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] OSP
>
>
> I'm trying to clarify what is a pretty murky topic. The undiscovered
> forest
> of open source design. I think we need one thread on integrating
> design into
> existing open source projects and one thread on designing by open
> source
> methods.
>
>
> On 10 Mar 2004, at 16:30, Mark Canlas wrote:
>
>> i... Don't get it. You want us to discuss now or did you forget to
>> link to something?
>>
>>
>> Mark Canlas
>> http://www.htmlism.com/mark/
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.co
>> m
>> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-
>> bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
>> com] On Behalf Of CD Evans
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:25
>> To: Interaction Discussion
>> Subject: [ID Discuss] OSP
>>
>>
>> Here's a nifty new thread on integrating design into Open Source
>> Programming.
>>
>> (Not as model for design)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Interaction Design Discussion List
>> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
>> --
>> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
>> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
>> --
>> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
>> --
>> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
>> already)
>> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
>> --
>> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>>
>

11 Mar 2004 - 8:38am
Dave Malouf
2005

Clifton,

I'm not sure that there is parity here.

I'm not sure that design should do things the way that coders do things.
They are very different goals and intents and work in different environments
and require a different type of collaboration and ownership than each other.

I do not agree w/ "design is modular". An outcome of the design process can
be modularity but I do not agree that design itself should be modular. I do
not see a value statement behind your statements in the previous post other
than to say, "We can be like you. So now respect us." ... I don't want their
respect b/c I'm like them, I want their respect b/c I'm not like them. I do
not feel any great need to kowtow to the coder's methodology. It works for
them in some circumstances but ...

1. OSS is not the end all be all of the world. It is not good for all
situations and its advantages to me are quite limited (as I feel this thread
is starting to show).

2. OSS has NOT provin' that it can truly compete in a purely capitalistic
environment. All of my preferred products are closed software. Sorry to say
that but it is true. Why? Don't know exactly. I feel like when I use these
tools that I am thought about, engaged with, and otherwise my needs are met.

What I think does make sense though for OSD, is opening up things like JJG's
visual vocab. That our methods can gain a lot by the sort of collaboration
and decision making that goes on in terms of our processes. This however is
VERY different from the results of using those processes. This is where I
can see the tools & resources initiative that we are working on to be of
great value.

BTW, the term thread really only means "subject line" for most people. It is
easier to follow a discussion in a virtual asynchronous domain when the
discussion stays bounded in some way and in this case the subject line
works, whether it is called a thread, topic, conversation, or just a
subject.

-- dave

David Heller
dave at interactiondesigners.com
http://www.interactiondesigners.com/

for work \\ http://www.intralinks.com
\\ http://www.htmhell.com
\\ http://webgui.htmhell.com

to connect \\ AIM: bolinhanyc
\\ Y!: dave_ux
\\ MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

11 Mar 2004 - 9:09am
CD Evans
2004

I beg to disagree.

Design is modular. Most americans live in a bauhaus / frank lloyd
wright spin off architecture, just as most britons live in a medieval
village / terrace dwelling architecture. These are designs. Sony made
the first walkman in a rectangle that opened on the side and had
buttons top or side, not much has changed. Again and again these simple
modular designs are reused exhaustively. From balcony handrails to
volume wheels, design is modular.

This is the rationale behind open source code, not to avoid making
profits but to avoid using outdated techniques. Designers should think
the same, we should try to avoid the left hand nav and the WIMP os.
It's tired and not original in the slightest.

I don't want to rant here. But think about this... The person who
designed the original left hand nav could well claim design rights over
most of the internet. But, they don't get to because we're currently in
a world where we pay Adobe or KPT to make more bevels and sliders, when
we should be paying the rightful inventors of those elements for their
designs.

We need real design, and modular distribution is the most likely path
forward.

Two return presses and a signature..

CD Evans

On 11 Mar 2004, at 14:38, David Heller wrote:

> Clifton,
>
> I'm not sure that there is parity here.
>
> I'm not sure that design should do things the way that coders do
> things.
> They are very different goals and intents and work in different
> environments
> and require a different type of collaboration and ownership than each
> other.
>
> I do not agree w/ "design is modular". An outcome of the design
> process can
> be modularity but I do not agree that design itself should be modular.
> I do
> not see a value statement behind your statements in the previous post
> other
> than to say, "We can be like you. So now respect us." ... I don't want
> their
> respect b/c I'm like them, I want their respect b/c I'm not like them.
> I do
> not feel any great need to kowtow to the coder's methodology. It works
> for
> them in some circumstances but ...
>
> 1. OSS is not the end all be all of the world. It is not good for all
> situations and its advantages to me are quite limited (as I feel this
> thread
> is starting to show).
>
> 2. OSS has NOT provin' that it can truly compete in a purely
> capitalistic
> environment. All of my preferred products are closed software. Sorry
> to say
> that but it is true. Why? Don't know exactly. I feel like when I use
> these
> tools that I am thought about, engaged with, and otherwise my needs
> are met.
>
>
> What I think does make sense though for OSD, is opening up things like
> JJG's
> visual vocab. That our methods can gain a lot by the sort of
> collaboration
> and decision making that goes on in terms of our processes. This
> however is
> VERY different from the results of using those processes. This is
> where I
> can see the tools & resources initiative that we are working on to be
> of
> great value.
>
> BTW, the term thread really only means "subject line" for most people.
> It is
> easier to follow a discussion in a virtual asynchronous domain when the
> discussion stays bounded in some way and in this case the subject line
> works, whether it is called a thread, topic, conversation, or just a
> subject.
>
> -- dave
>
> David Heller
> dave at interactiondesigners.com
> http://www.interactiondesigners.com/
>
> for work \\ http://www.intralinks.com
> \\ http://www.htmhell.com
> \\ http://webgui.htmhell.com
>
> to connect \\ AIM: bolinhanyc
> \\ Y!: dave_ux
> \\ MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

11 Mar 2004 - 9:37am
Peter Boersma
2003

CD wrote:
> Design is modular. Most americans live in a bauhaus / frank lloyd
> wright spin off architecture, just as most britons live in a medieval
> village / terrace dwelling architecture. These are designs.

In a previous post you were looking for a label and I propose "pattern".
In the quote above you refer to architectural patterns, and that's where the
term was used first: in Christopher Alexander's "The Timeless Way of
Building" (and more explicitly in "A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings,
Construction").

Maybe collections of design patterns are our version of Open Source Design?
(have a look at Martijn van Welie's collection:
http://www.welie.com/patterns/)

Peter

P.S.: Further down, you wrote:
> This is the rationale behind open source code [...]

That's where you and I disagree: the rationale behind open source is to
co-develop intermediate results (modules) and reuse the end-result fro free,
not necessarily reuse the modules. Programming in a way that alows for reuse
is not the goal, it's a method.

--
Peter Boersma | Senior Information Architect | EzGov
De Schinkel | Rijnsburgstraat 11 | 1059AT Amsterdam | The Netherlands
P: +31(0)20 7133881 | F: +31(0)20 7133799 | M: +31(0)6 15072747
mailto:peter.boersma at ezgov.com | http://www.europe.ezgov.com

11 Mar 2004 - 9:37am
Ben Hunt
2004

// Dave wrote //
I'm not sure that design should do things the way that coders do things. They are very different goals and intents and work in different environments and require a different type of collaboration and ownership than each other.

I've just written a short article (for a forthcoming online course on the fundamental principles of web design), which argues that designers should learn certain approaches to their work from coders...

-------------The pursuit of the original-------------

My friend John Endean is one of the most successful people I've met in web development. He taught me that the most important skill for a developer is laziness.

When faced with a problem, the lazy developer will first find out if it has been solved before, and if possible rip off the code. The hardworking developer will stay late and try to figure out the problem from first principles. Who would you rather have on your team?

I propose that web designers too should embrace laziness, and stop straining to create the truly original. We are not independent

We're all influenced by the designs we see around us all the time. Subconsciously, we spend most of our time trying to do designs that are similar to the ones we like, even when we're saying we're trying to be unique and original.

Let's face it - the web's so darn big and so exposed, everyone's looking at everyone else's, and we're really all in this together.

**Web design is a virus**

The progress of design is evolutionary, like the lifecycle of the cold virus. Advances come through random genetic mutations, some of which give a design/virus an advantage. Stronger strains filter through the community - lots of people get it - and after a while we grow immune: it doesn't have the effect it had initially.

There's no getting away from the common cold, and there's no effective vaccine. In the same way, we as designers can't innoculate ourselves from the influence of the design we see. We get affected by it all, to differing extents. It's in our bloodstream. We're saturated with it. It comes out in everything we do, and sometimes there are those miraculous mistakes or surprises that seem like something new has come into existence.

**A new belief system**

It's time that we as designers admit the following:

* We're working in a huge, creative common market, where the vast majority of design isn't original
* Successful designs are successful for good reasons: they have properties that give them a competitive advantage in their environment
* Our job isn't to reinvent the rules in every design we produce. Our job is to understand the environment, and to put together the strongest products we are able
* When we try to do something totally original, we are more likely to fail than to succeed

The benefits of kicking the originality habit

* Adherence to standard design principles, standards, conventions and patterns benefits web users.
* It's quicker, easier, and more profitable.
* It let you save up your creative energy, and pick your moments to shine, which is more fun than sweating over reinventing every wheel

11 Mar 2004 - 9:51am
Dave Malouf
2005

Re: the pursuit of the original

Hmm? I don't think it's the pursuit of originality, though that is a piece
of every designer's ego need, but to be honest, I'm looking for what works
and quite honestly what is out there in convention or pattern in our current
set of interaction design "modules" is not good, especially on the web. I
think we would be failing our users if we stopped striving for originality
(aka perfection).

That being said, conventions have their place, but I am really struggling
with creating patterns in this way when it comes to both architecture and
IxD.

While I find patterns interesting (I'm a very pattern hungry mind), I do not
think there is unanimous acceptance of the validity and value of using
patterns at all, let alone as a way to create a structure of re-use.

Again, I'm all for re-using process, or more importantly cooperative
creation of processes (that's what I see as a real value of open source is
that it is cooperative, not reuseable). But actual design outcomes? That
really goes counter to everything that seems to be from all the schools of
design. To me what makes design so awesome is the individual (an individual
in this case is the individual conception). Yes it is egotistical, but to me
it is what separates Wright from Gehrey from Cooper from Holtzblat from
Heller. These are good and valuable distinctions that empower us, not lessen
us.

Again, what does open even mean? Seems like we have different ideas. Also,
we have different "beliefs" about its value.

That being said, it doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned, but rather,
there is a difference between learning and assimilating. One creates Borgs
the other creates a Federation of independent planets working for a common
goal of goodness throughout the galaxy. ;)

-- dave

11 Mar 2004 - 10:07am
Dave Collins
2004

>I propose that web designers too should embrace laziness, and stop
>straining to create the truly original. We are not independent

I'm new here, but with a background in both design and coding, I'll
weigh in anyway.

Look at the goals of the designer and the coder from the user
experience.

The coder needs to produce something that works. If it worked before, it
will work again. There is no inherent merit to a creative solution. The
coder's creation is (or should be) transparent to the user.

The designer OTOH needs to double as a marketer for the website. A
design that user has seen before will not necessarily peak their
interest. If it worked before, it won't necessarily work again. A
creative solution is tied up in the goal.

All that being said, from the user point of view, innovativeness does
have its place - but it should not (usually) be a goal unto itself.
Users may like new, funky sites, but they also want to get stuff done.
And that means meeting their expectations, which means standard design
practices - and that aligns with your proposal of not reinventing the
wheel every time.

Dave Collins
User Interface Design
Phoenix Interactive

11 Mar 2004 - 10:31am
Andy Edmonds
2004

I come at this problem with experience primarily in the Mozilla space.
Obviously I differ from David H, in that the open source Mozilla tool
suite forms a core part of my fluency in application prototyping,
innovative interaction design, open source contributions, and even
product development. I also rely heavily on other open source systems -
Apache, CVS, Bugzilla, et al. Creating an effective way for UCD experts
to contribute to open source development has the potential for impact on
my bottom line.

I'm happy to see the discussion turn to patterns and I think these could
be successfully exposed to open source projects -- ideally with starter
source code in common UI implementation languages - XUL, DHTML/CSS,
wxWidgets, Glade, etc.

Patterns focus on one part of the problem, mapping functionality to UI.
A related focus is taking advantage of common user knowledge based upon
existing software systems -- another benefit to kicking the originality
habit. A recommended pre-design competitive evaluation format would also
be highly useful and could incoporate Visual Vocabulary to show
variations in flow.

This topic has seen other dicussions including a related list
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usabilitybazaar). The challenge is as
much social and organizational as it is topical. While it's important
to consider what design wisdom is most appropriate to push into OSD,
it's equally important to understand how and why open source projects
develop and meld effectively into that. Alternatively, one could set out
to create an explicit plan for shaping the process, as I think Gnome has
successfully accomplished. An idea from the Bazaar discussion was a
dedicated mailing list or resource for open source projects to request
feedback from UCD experts.

I have attempted to bring GOMS level analysis to the Mozilla bug
tracking space, where intentions to allocate time to development
projects are often announced prior to execution (
http://www.surfmind.com/musings/2003/10/31/ ). Prioritization of issues
is always a challenge in OS and negative user impact quantification is
one approach.

Considering user goals is another "missing piece" in many development
cycles and it seems that out best tool to tackle this to date is
personas with use cases a 2nd runner up. I personally would like to try
a more formal task modeling approach and think that some developers
might appreciate the robustness of that type of model.

Finally, a touch of self promotion -- I've created two open source
projects for heuristic evaluation and card sorting that are open to
contribution and feedback - http://uzilla.mozdev.org.

Much of the academic work, some of which is referenced below, is how to
harness user feedback successfully. Bugzilla does not do this in
acceptable way for end users. The social contract of open source
encourages a greater commitment from users to providing feedback -- we
just don't yet know how to channel that.

See the following references for more:
http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/ContinuousDesign/UIUC/data/
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/articles/why_care/
http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html
http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~daven/docs/oss-wp.html

-AE, aim:RoadAndyed
-=-=-
... Uzilla, LLC: "Tools for a Usable Web", http://uzilla.net
Human Factors MS: http://people.clemson.edu/~kedmond

11 Mar 2004 - 10:34am
Jenifer Tidwell
2003

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Peter Boersma wrote:

> In a previous post you were looking for a label and I propose "pattern".

Yes!

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I had in mind when I started
writing down UI patterns, back in 1997: to offer an open,
flexible collection of design "modules" for designers and
non-designers to use. No, they won't guarantee a good design,
since design is a holistic and context-dependent activity, but
it's a start.

> Maybe collections of design patterns are our version of Open Source Design?
> (have a look at Martijn van Welie's collection:
> http://www.welie.com/patterns/)

And mine too: http://time-tripper.com/uipatterns/

As always, I want to work with other designers to expand this
collection and make it more useful. I invite any interested
designers to offer more of them -- you will, of course, be
credited. (I claim no originality for any of these things.)

Would it be useful to set up a wiki or "pattern blog" somewhere,
kind of like Christina Wodke's "widgetopia," to permit more
free-flowing discussion? My current site's pretty static.

- Jenifer

--------------------------------------------
Jenifer Tidwell
w: jtidwell at mathworks.com
h: jtidwell at alum.mit.edu
http://jtidwell.net/

11 Mar 2004 - 10:33am
Paul Trumble
2004

Dave Collins wrote:

>The coder needs to produce something that works. If it worked before, it
>will work again. There is no inherent merit to a creative solution. The
>coder's creation is (or should be) transparent to the user.
>
>The designer OTOH needs to double as a marketer for the website. A
>design that user has seen before will not necessarily peak their
>interest. If it worked before, it won't necessarily work again. A
>creative solution is tied up in the goal.
>
>
>
The designer who is able to work within the framework of of the
patterns will achieve a compelling design and provide a better
experience. I think the constraints that patterns impose improve the
design process.

I think Peter Boersma is onto something with the term 'patterns'.

Paul Trumble

11 Mar 2004 - 12:32pm
Peter Bagnall
2003

> Would it be useful to set up a wiki or "pattern blog" somewhere,
> kind of like Christina Wodke's "widgetopia," to permit more
> free-flowing discussion? My current site's pretty static.

A wiki would be an excellent way to do this IMO. It's also very much in
the spirit of "open" design.

My thinking about open source is that anyone (or should that be any
coder) can get the source code and change it to meet their needs. The
same is true of patterns. You shouldn't just take patterns as
prescriptive, but as guidance. Alexander himself says that the way a
pattern is implemented should be changed by the context of other
patterns it's used with. It's the way a group of patterns are assembled
which makes a design unique.

To take the analogy with open source, an open design would be one which
included not just the design itself, which is more like giving someone
the finished product, but also the rationale behind the design
decisions. By giving them the reasoning you allow other designers to
modify the design to make it more applicable to the specific domain
they are using the design in.

Open source has taken off largely because the licences used require
that modifications to the design must be returned to the community. So
to get open design we'd need to have similar licences I suspect.

At the moment I'm doing a piece of design (and implementation) work as
part of my PhD studies, and one of the things I'm doing is recording
why I went down the design route I'm going down (a luxury that perhaps
in the commercial world is less feasible). If I were to publish that
record, which I may well do, it could form the basis of an "open"
design.

In other words, I would say the design rationale is more akin to source
code than the design itself, because it's that which gives the power to
others to make intelligent changes that maintain the integrity of the
rest of the design.

Patterns are naturally open design since the core of a pattern is the
rationale and applicability of the solution to a problem. That makes is
possible for designers to interpret and reuse, and then offer
derivative patterns back to the community when they innovate.

Incidentally, I deliberately use the term "open design" since there is
no "source". My feeling is it captures what we're aiming for if we
intend to go the "open" route.

--Peter

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve
the quality of life, please press three.
- Alice Kahn

Peter Bagnall - http://www.surfaceeffect.com/

11 Mar 2004 - 12:41pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Peter said, "My thinking about open source is that anyone (or should that be
any
coder) can get the source code and change it to meet their needs."

Actually, not all open source programs work by this method. BSD for example
requires that coders are approved before their admittance into the project.

But also, not all changes are considered in the best interest of any OS
project, too. There are release managers and code reviewers. Now this gets
very tricky for us. What would be a "code" submission process? Who gets to
review? On what criteria would be acceptance or rejection into a release?
What would be a release? Etc. etc.

-- dave

11 Mar 2004 - 12:48pm
CD Evans
2004

Jenifer and all,

Jenifer's patterns have inspired me many times. I could dig out my old
notes on her patterns if this convo really gets going...

Humbly, I think patterns are definitely one key to the problem. But, in
response to Andy's concerns, I don't think they are the full answer.
Putting some patterns in dreamweaver with a bit of UI source code is
one answer but it might be a design heading in the wrong direction.

For instance, you need a shopping tally, fine drag it out of
dreamweaver and presto, you've got the shopping tally. But wait, it's
not got that extra sub totaling function your client was on about,
hmmm.

This is why I think we need to brace ourselves, in the calm before the
storm, so to speak, and figure out how to make modules, patterns, globs
or whatever, _before_ we actually need them. And I, modestly, believe
that we need open source design to get us to that stage.

Dreamweaver UI plugins would be nice, but not if they are from
independent libraries, creators etc with no ability to edit or update.
I'm for open source pattern globs and I'm sticking to it.

CD Evans

On 11 Mar 2004, at 16:34, Jenifer Tidwell wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Peter Boersma wrote:
>
>> In a previous post you were looking for a label and I propose
>> "pattern".
>
> Yes!
>
> This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I had in mind when I started
> writing down UI patterns, back in 1997: to offer an open,
> flexible collection of design "modules" for designers and
> non-designers to use. No, they won't guarantee a good design,
> since design is a holistic and context-dependent activity, but
> it's a start.
>
>> Maybe collections of design patterns are our version of Open Source
>> Design?
>> (have a look at Martijn van Welie's collection:
>> http://www.welie.com/patterns/)
>
> And mine too: http://time-tripper.com/uipatterns/
>
> As always, I want to work with other designers to expand this
> collection and make it more useful. I invite any interested
> designers to offer more of them -- you will, of course, be
> credited. (I claim no originality for any of these things.)
>
> Would it be useful to set up a wiki or "pattern blog" somewhere,
> kind of like Christina Wodke's "widgetopia," to permit more
> free-flowing discussion? My current site's pretty static.
>
> - Jenifer
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Jenifer Tidwell
> w: jtidwell at mathworks.com
> h: jtidwell at alum.mit.edu
> http://jtidwell.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

11 Mar 2004 - 2:49pm
Alain D. M. G. ...
2003

Open source code criticism or selection or submission is ultimately
based on wether the software actually works.

Same thing for the furniture patterns which were copied, published and
republished by Sheraton, Hepplewhite and others, in a sort of
cabinet-maker's open source effort in the 18th century. Can you
actually build and sit on this chair? Yes, OK, then I distribute this.

The equivalent would be to only place design patterns which have been
repeatedly proven to work efficiently, and which can be described in
text and in graphical examples from actual working applications.

I never really understand any of the proposed patterns when there is no
illustration, or in some cases many illustrations to give an idea of
time baed sequences.

Alain V.

--- David Heller <dave at interactiondesigners.com> a écrit : >
>
> But also, not all changes are considered in the best interest of any
> OS
> project, too. There are release managers and code reviewers. Now this
> gets
> very tricky for us. What would be a "code" submission process? Who
> gets to
> review? On what criteria would be acceptance or rejection into a
> release?
> What would be a release? Etc. etc.
>
> -- dave

__________________________________________________________
Lèche-vitrine ou lèche-écran ?
magasinage.yahoo.ca

11 Mar 2004 - 2:58pm
Peter Bagnall
2003

On 11 Mar 2004, at 18:41, David Heller wrote:

> Peter said, "My thinking about open source is that anyone (or should
> that be
> any
> coder) can get the source code and change it to meet their needs."
>
> Actually, not all open source programs work by this method. BSD for
> example
> requires that coders are approved before their admittance into the
> project.

Modifying the code, and that being accepted back into the main branch
are two separate things. For it to be open the code must be available.
If you can't even get the source without becoming part of the team I'd
argue it's not true open source.

But as you say, that doesn't mean it becomes part of the official
system. I can download the apache source, and I can send my changes
back to them. At that point it's up to them whether they accept those
changes or not. So yes, there are degree's of openness. I think
allowing anyone to get the source is a minimum though.

> But also, not all changes are considered in the best interest of any OS
> project, too. There are release managers and code reviewers. Now this
> gets
> very tricky for us. What would be a "code" submission process? Who
> gets to
> review? On what criteria would be acceptance or rejection into a
> release?
> What would be a release? Etc. etc.

Typically whoever starts a project can decide what they accept. If I
were to start an open source project I could decide that the "official"
version would be that which I approved. I could accept changes from
whoever I chose, with whatever criteria.

So take the system I'm designing. If I decide to "open design" it, then
other designers could make their changes to my design and send them to
me. If I approve then I could add their changes into the design. That
way I would control the design at some level.

Of course there would be nothing to stop them making their design based
on my original and publishing it as a competing design. This has
happened in the Open source community many times. Perhaps the most
famous example being xemacs splitting from the main emacs branch.

I don't see this as being a problem. If a branch decides to try a
different avenue that may be useful, and it's possible that the two
branches may gain from each other later on, or they may go their
separate ways and end up serving different user communities.

--Pete

----------------------------------------------------------
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin, 1706 - 1790

Peter Bagnall - http://people.surfaceeffect.com/pete/

11 Mar 2004 - 3:05pm
Peter Bagnall
2003

On 11 Mar 2004, at 20:49, Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt wrote:
> The equivalent would be to only place design patterns which have been
> repeatedly proven to work efficiently, and which can be described in
> text and in graphical examples from actual working applications.

Absolutely, I always thought that was core to the definition of a
pattern.

I use the term proto-pattern to describe something that has pattern
form, but which doesn't have enough evidence behind it to really be a
pattern yet. If enough evidence accumulates it may become a pattern or
it may (if the evidence shows it to be a bad idea) become an
anti-pattern. I think it can be useful to use proto-patterns since that
helps the community to test them and decide whether they should indeed
become patterns.

I don't think the term has wide usage, but it may be useful. There does
seem to be a temptation in some to "invent" patterns. I don't think
that's possible, I'm a firm believer that patterns can only be
discovered by finding designs (of interfaces or code or buildings) that
work well in the real world.

--Pete

----------------------------------------------------------
The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating
any charge known to the law, particularly to deny him the judgement of
his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all
totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
-Winston Churchill, 1943

Peter Bagnall - http://people.surfaceeffect.com/pete/

11 Mar 2004 - 4:35pm
jarango
2004

On 3/11/04 10:37 AM, "Peter Boersma" <peter.boersma at ezgov.com> wrote:

> (have a look at Martijn van Welie's collection:
> http://www.welie.com/patterns/)

Are you aware of this book:

The Design of Sites: Patterns, Principles, and Processes for Crafting a
Customer-Centered Web Experience
by Douglas K. van Duyne, James A. Landay, and Jason I. Hong
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/020172149X/qid=1079044352/sr=2-1/ref
=sr_2_1/102-7614110-0656150>

I've found it useful, even though it doesn't delve very deeply into
specifics. (It's great for helping justify certain high level decisions to
customers.)

--
Jorge Arango
http://www.jarango.com

12 Mar 2004 - 12:59pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

This whole OSD discussion I have been staying out of, mostly because I
think it's interesting what people think about such an effort. For five
or so years now, I've been wanting to start an Open Source Design style
sort of project. I think it is possible, and something that would help
the field in so many ways for legitimacy, standards setting, and
education for everyone who participated.

I wanted to note that I think Interface design, web design, application
design, all of it can be approached in a modular fashion to work across
multiple systems or projects. The most basic modular pieces are things
at the simple level, like checkboxes, radio buttons and text edit
fields. Above and beyond that, there are standards that could be put
into place, and made available to the community. These standards are
modular in nature in that they can be applied under many different
circumstances. Things like breadcrumbing, or menu navigation systems,
or form error display, or a host of other design components. (I don't
like the term patterns by the way. I think the term sidesteps the issue
that design can be modular and reusable.)

The look and feel of modular designs can be made customizable to a
large degree, but it depends on your definition of design and modular.
I've designed two or three products now that had custom branding as a
marketing requirement behind them. The entire system was modular even
at the interface design level, and could be made to look enough like
what a client wanted as one of their own products. It is possible, but
you have to back off into the most basic, fundamental aspects of
design.

Here's the thing about modular design, from my point of view: Imagine
if every city, town and neighborhood in the United States put their
street signs, and address number in the *exact same* location? Imagine
how much easier it would be to get around no matter where you lived. (I
know I for one hate trying to figure out where street signs are and
address when I drive around in a new town while I'm on the road.) If
everyone did just that, and had to follow concepts like using only san
serifs fonts between size X and size Y, and were allowed to use
whatever color for the sign backing... well, that would give towns some
room to make the signs fit in with their culture, but still position
them in spots such that an American would know where to find them.
(This sort of standard for design obviously works for the interstate
highway system.)

But for some reason, those kind of design limitations seem to make
people feel like "they can't express themselves." Like something is
lost in the design restrictions or placing signs in a specific
location. Fine, what we get are signs that are all over the place from
town to town, making it more difficult to find places as we move
around. I personally think it's time to start thinking about the bigger
picture, and less about smaller concerns. (And yes, I'm in favor of the
U.S. biting the bullet and making our measurement systems switch over
Metric. It's just silly that we don't.)

Interface design, web design, application design... it's very similar.
We can either view what we do as trying to have some sort of creative
control at a small level for little return, or start to think about the
bigger picture. If there was an agreed design standard on a checkout
system that covered the form layout, flow and payment process for the
80/20 case, then imagine how much better we would all be if every
single online store used that checkout process? I think it would make
the world of difference. And I think it *is* possible. It may not be
easy to figure out, but neither is coding an operating system like
Linux.

Part of the point of open source is to get a lot of smart people
attacking a problem to handle the complexities.

But one has to believe there are basic, fundamental aspects to design
to even get out of the gate. I'd love to see the whole OSD take off. I
think it would be one of the more exciting projects to happen in the
design community in quite some time.

Andrei Herasimchuk
andrei at adobe.com

work: http://www.adobe.com
personal: http://www.designbyfire.com

Syndicate content Get the feed