On 2/19/08, Loren Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What I find interesting about all of these interfaces is that they aren't > immediately self-explanatory. The user needs to play around with them > before discovering how it can be used. At first, I thought this was
I think that's one of the defining characteristics of digital interaction to support really any creative process. Look at Photoshop. How "usable" is that? My wife sat down recently to learn it, and had trouble figuring out how to just get images into it. Now, she's a novice when it comes to manipulating pixels, so maybe that's to be expected. Photoshop is designed without constraints that make it easy for novices, and instead offers up wide possibilities for people who are skilled at manipulating digital color in general and pixels in particular. Could PS be better at supporting the flow of creativity? I think it could be, although I'm no massive image editor myself. My limited experience with it is that it is a somewhat machine-like, highly modal UI. If I were a painter (which... hoo boy... i am not!), i would have my paints, solvents, etc. at arms reach... but with PS, many, many things are hidden behind menus, dialog boxes, etc... So I think that while a creative digital application *requires* some sort of learning along with a subject-matter virtuosity, there are good ways of doing this (Ableton Live) and... less good ways (Photoshop). Thoughts? - Fred ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
