> > One could argue that -- given a context -- "disruption" can > actually be good: if things are too predictable, sudden changes of > patterns can grab people's attention back. >
Fantastic point! Let's see where it takes us (thinking out loud now) ... So, under what circumstances do we need to grab their attention back? I suppose a system error could be a good reason. I doubt many people expect or desire system errors. But if there's a system error, isn't that a usability issue? As in, if a system error occurs when I was expecting something else, then doesn't that mean the system is less usable than it should be? Is system reliability is part of usability? (Seems so, but are there arguments that this is not the case?) In Bruce Sterling's example, the lack of scenery caused people to daze out and crash, presumably because the scenery was too predictable. Leading people to crash would be a definite usability issue, I'd say. And in that case, predictability seemed to cause it. Unpredictability — in this case, some texture in the design — could have prevented lots of crashes. However, one could argue that the golf cart driver's prediction should be being able to get through the 27km line of tube without crashing. "I predict I will get through this unharmed" seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to make. How hard is it to drive a golf cart, after all? Hmm. Thoughts? There's definitely something to your argument, and I'd like to explore it more. -r- ________________________________________________________________ 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
