Re: [IxDA Discuss] Personas: how many is too many?

[Navid Sadikali]

 I agree with Todd to base it on the observed data.

I used your email as an educational note to our internal team.  Here is my
email to my team cut and pasted here.

Below – in the attached email “Personas: how many is too many?” - is a very
common problem in using personas.  People naively differentiate them on
marketing terms or consumer types.  That is not a persona.  Personas aren’t
stratified by variables like income (imagine a 0-50K, 50-100K, 100k+ ) or
race, or even task (heart surgeon,  bone surgeon, brain surgeon).  Marketing
departments try to differentiate target markets based on these variables,
and that is a different methodology which we won’t go into.


Personas are discovered through ethnographic (observational) research, not
made up.  They are only differentiated by goals – same goals, same persona.
Personas are a deep finding, kind of like Jungian archetypes (ENTP etc) if
you are familiar with those.Usually primary personas need a specific
product design dedicated for them, because their goals are so different from
the others.  Our goal with personas is to ultimately design a product for
each one, and thereby move from making one all-inclusive product trying to
serve all needs for everyone, to specific products for each “Primary
Persona”.

Navid


On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:17 AM, charles Sue-Wah-Sing  wrote:

> There is this project I'm working on that is for pet owners, breeders
> and vets. They have identified 15 consumer types between the three
> main segments I've mentioned. The client is requesting we create
> personas for all 15.

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Differnce between user interface and interaction design?

[Navid Sadikali]

I'm doing some visual design prototypes this evening, preparing to call "my"
visual designer tommorrow, and thinking this isn't an academic subject or
splitting hairs.I feel interaction designer and visual designer are not
idealized roles, but are how people break down at the mastery level.   If
you're trying to do world class work these 2 people are different.   A
competent interaction designer will have a visual aesthetic, and intuit what
avenues are worthy of exploration for the client/project, but they may look
to an expert visual designer for backing on the visual design front.  The
interaction designer better be the one who is so embedded in
the client's world view that s/he's probably the one chomping at the bit
with tangents and avenues worth looking into from a visual designer.  At
least that's how I feel.  Interaction designers key attributes have to be
empathy for the user's you are working for, and intuition about some end
state of the user experience.  The interaction designer probably is "calling
in" the visual design expert to help achieve that end-state.

I thought I would share what I'm working on because it seems clear to me by
example. At my company, I'm the in-house IxDesigner, and the visual designer
is contracted out.  In my case,  it is a matter of when I call in the "big
guns."I do interaction design in the medical imaging space.  Things are
changing here quick,  3d imaging data from the newest scanners is becoming
available to physicians and those virtual human images will no longer be
something you only see on the Discovery channel but in the hospital.  For a
facile analogy, think flight simulator is now available to
your gastroenterologist, who has only ever played the arcade version of Pole
Position.  Problem: With all of these fancy images in all planes, we find
that even imaging experts have a hard time visualizing where one image (one
slice) is in relation to another spatially.   Surprise,
surprise,  non-expert physicians (e.g. surgeons) have even a harder time,
and shy away from using imaging systems in a lot of cases.  Instead,
they cut people open to find what out what the anatomy is, or to find out
what size stent to use etc.  Uneeded operations?  Yes.   People avoid
technology if they aren't confident with it.

So, while working on some interaction scenarios tonight, I thought "can we
modify some visual cues on these images to give people a better sense of
where one plane is in relation to another?"   This is not the objective of
our project (remember we're making flight simulator for the medical world),
but just an inkling of one of many such intangible user needs I keep near at
mind.So I tried a visual design prototype in 20 minutes (temporary link
http://phosted.com/0801/ixda_work_screen.jpg).  The prototype isn't there
yet, but I can see it might go somewhere if we can give physicians
a perceptual sense of "looking" into the planar relationships. I could
continue doing visual design, but now having honed in on a specific problem
worth solving and what looks like a possible fruitful path I'm going to hand
it off.  I'd rather steep the visual designer in the problem and user's
needs and have him come back at me with new ideas.   Is this prettying up an
interface?  No.   Is it branding?  No.   It is visual communication, mostly
of a static form, and there are visual designers who are specialists
there.   My goal for these users to give physicians people a sense of
spatial relations so they use fancy-shmancy images and can "see" where they
are in the body.  I'm well aware that my current initiative may not be the
one, we may need to envision a rotating orb with plane slices all through
it, or something else entirely.  I think it is part of the interaction
designer makeup to really persevere until the user's goals are met, and a
visual designer is one person to enlist on the way there.

To summarize,  I'm sure some interaction designers can do the gamut of
branding, icongraphy and top notch static visual communicaiton.  I'm sure
many visual designers can create a sensible interaction design in the
complex space of business, technology and people.   But do people really
find that there are people who are equally motivated to do it all, and are
equally talented in both...or is it more the case that people naturally fall
into these two roles?

I think it is something like to do world-class work you'll generally find
that the interaction designer and visual designer have two skill set domains
that overlap, but they are different roles and these people fallout
naturally.    The interaction designer better be breadth heavy in more
skills and the visual designer better be depth heavy in fewer.   You want
both on your team.

Navid Sadikali
Interaction Designer
Agfa Healthcare


On Jan 29, 2008 6:12 PM

[IxDA Discuss] Gmail hover-open contacts - hover time in ms?

[Navid Sadikali]

We are thinking of using a hover open dialog to layer and nest suboptions
under rapid access buttons.
This strategy brings to light a second layer without requiring user
interaction/exploration.

I don't mind the way the Gmail contacts work

- open on hover over contact (*estimated hover time* in ms?)
- if you go in a channel eastward towards the contact it stays open
- if you drift off the channel (over another contact) it stays open just in
case you're drifting (*estimated stay open* *time* in ms?)

If anyone has guesstimates on the times above, let me know.  Also, if there
are other interaction details that would be good to know I'd love to find
those out.

Thanks,
Navid Sadikali
Interaction Designer
Agfa Healthcare

*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA
Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Evil Datagrids! ( was RE: Fwd: Thoughts on AlanCooper's Keynote )

[Navid Sadikali]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Rob Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There's nothing wrong with data grids per se.


Technology has tendencies which affect our behavior perniciously - the way
in which we converse and express.   So I don't think a data-grid can
be right or wrong, but dangerous yes. Data grids are dangerous.

The danger with data grids is two-fold

a) They imply a transactional means of interaction.  You enter input fields
into a search and a datagrid binds outputs. Input entry from user,  grid
bound output from computer.  Stimulus, response.

b) They imply a means of information/visualization.  Namely, data cells in a
regular grid.

Want an example of where the datagrid might be dangerous, but nonetheless *the
default strategy*?   A normal train schedule search.  I want to find a train
to go from place A to place B at time X.

*Data grid Ixd: *  Input: place A, place B, time X.   Press Search.
Output: rows of matching train entries.   Don't find what you are looking
for? Modify A, B, or X and repeat.

*Data grid Visualization:*  Data are values placed in a grid cell.
Stations, times, and everything else.

*Problems with the Data grid approach:* User must find appropriate trains by
mental calculation from data.  If user doesn't find what he wants, or is off
on the times, he begins the dialogue over again.

*Non data grid IxD:*  Inputs are places on a map.  Train time starts now, so
no input required.

*Non data grid Visualization:*  A time schedule where the horizontal axis is
time and trains are placed on it.
Just look here:   http://worrydream.com/bartwidget/ (thanks to Aza Raskin
for this example)

*Solutions inspired by alternative approach:*  A seamless interactive
input-output dialogue of dragging stations around which inspires more "what
if" scenarios.   This solution lets people *see time and compare trains*, it
is oriented around planning your route.

Therefore, the problem with data grids like any technology is that it
curtails our thoughts and limits our expression, and suggests that all
problems are readily solved by using it.


Navid Sadikali
Agfa Healthcare
Interaction Design

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] prototypes are software and belong to engineers?

[Navid Sadikali]

On Feb 15, 2008 12:47 PM, Dave Cronin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> (I don't know what everyone is using for rendering, but I have to put a
> plug in for Fireworks. I feel like the reason some designers resort to
> interactive prototypes is that their tools don't handle state very well.
> Between Frames and Pages, Fireworks helps do this quickly and fluidly.)
>
>

Dave,

I find that for me static states in a form & behavior document storied
out clearly communicate the action. For others this may not be the case.

In our meetings with development things are clarified inevitably, and we get
a lot of "OH...I see."  Sometimes I bring up fireworks and click between
states to show them.   Perhaps this is the point of meetings.  However,
sometimes I do imagine that the things we are clarifying (behavior between 2
states) could have been handled by the documentation, that these things are
to me *so obvious and should be made more so in some way.*  I'd rather
meetings be used to:

a)  Emotionally engage.   Rally the troops so to speak around the problem at
hand.  Having dev in a meeting room and showing them evidence of the
problems and customer footage.   Not all of our documentation, whether using
personas or not, is so real.   The heart is tied to what it sees, and once
dev has witnessed some of the background research and the f&b is tied to it
they are "bought in."  We have stories of dev going home on the weekend and
spending 20hrs of their own time working through the technical architecture
after these meetings.

b) Clarify edge cases and* *technical architecture issues.


So what might help?   *Animation.*   Even having the mouse drag across the
screen between state 1 & 2 (pre/post click) embues a feeling of liveness.
The other thing is that in an animation the visual stream is fixed so
comparison between 2 states (e.g. pre/post click) is simple.  Sometimes
documentation techniques such as callouts and zoom-ins work, but I know that
animation would work better a lot of the time.   In a lot of animations I
would embed callouts and overlays.

What would help me...I have the fixed states as pages/frames,  what I lack
are the transitions.   Take the mouse pointer bitmap from one position to
another position.  Is there a simple means to do this within fireworks?
(without making a gazillion frames)  Or do we have to transition to Flash?
Flash sucks because it involves manual labor of importing each frame, and
then if you edit your masters you have to redo everything.

Navid

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Means to an IxDA message? WAS: Re: Where are all the designers?

[Navid Sadikali]

You don't have to change your focus from design to development.   Find an
industry where design matters or a corporation that values design as a
differentiator.   There is no lack of these industries or corporations, and
the list is growing.

If I was building web sites for small clients who have few $$ and a no
inhouse dev staff, and they wanted everything yesterday and the value to
their business was having a web site at all, not in it leading the market
placethen of course, I would hire that extra developer versus a
designer.   This is a "well duh" situation as a designer, and you shoud move
on.
Lastly,  there are product areas where design doesn't enable "make it
better" attributes (useable/beautiful).   Design is the product, it is the
thing itself you are buying, it enables the creation.  I think the iphone is
a good example.  It is not a phone.  It is a new product category...most
similar to the PDA,  but through design I think it breaks through into
something other than that...which is mainstream.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Scott McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> matters in the end.  A more usable or beautiful end result is harder
> to prove in a countdown
> of hours and money for a client project.
>
> Damnit :-|
>
> Scott
>
>

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] What's exciting in Adobe Thermo?

[Navid Sadikali]

I agree.

For desktop applications where typically new controls are created, and/or
where rich object models are manipulated through interaction, Thermo isn't
going to help prototyping (or it would be unwieldy to do so).   For
simple web form applications it might form a prototyping environment,
remains to be seen.

I think bringing motion/transition to static design screen states would be
the sweet spot for interaction designers.  The idea would be to take
Fireworks and add flash-like animatability.  The key point is that the goal
is not creating flash video or a flash application.  The goal is better
documentation through motion.   Unfortunately, roundtrips between Flash and
Fireworks are basically impossible and nobody wants to roundtrip really.

As many interaction designers do, I typically use Fireworks frames such
that each frame is a static state of the application in a unfolding
scenario.   A design might include 5-30 of such states for a given scenario
through the application. If I could give these states life, by a moving
mouse cursor and inserting clicks and transitions from one state to another
in time that would be a killer ap.  (details: typically a transition point
in a scenario has a frame pre-click, a frame for hover, and a frame for
post-click with associated changes in the application mocked up).

With "Fireworks Thermo edition" (who has time to transition to another
tool), I could document very powerful scenarios in a short clips of
5-6 screen states with a live running time of ~30seconds.   Most training
videos for a feature are this length, and Ixd documentation would be
similar.This type of documentation would be powerful because it would
allow developers and marketing types to get a living picture.  We all know
that static visuals put text out of business well moving visuals will put
static visuals out of business.  Interaction designers need to cement
behaviors, and behavior is best demonstrated by moving visuals.  There are
two ways to get compelling motion:  1) you build the thing and show them  2)
you make a better visual fiction.   Thermo should go in the latter
direction.   Let designers make compelling fiction with moving pictures.

Thermo shouldn't try to make the designer convert everything to
controls/components, it would help more to be keep the designs as visual
design mockups and "controlify" certain elements.   This is some weird
hybrid to be sure.   Working outside Fireworks to transform to
UI controls, bind sample datasets or wire-behaviors is really a outside my
core goals, and taking me into the dev direction.  The cost is too
high.I need a way *to animate what I have designed within Fireworks, so
it is communicated effectively and compellingly.*

Navid




On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Oleg Krupnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>
> We arrive at the same old deficiency of all widget-based prototyping tools
> - you can only
> prototype trivial things, that are self-understood and do not need to be
> prototyped (but simply documented), and you can't prototype what needs to
> be
> prototyped, i.e. new interactions.

...so what we wanted to do was making it easier
> for the designers to actually build the application". This seems to be the
> main idea of Thermo.


> As I said, I'm not taking sides and just want to enrich this discussion
> with
> alternative opinions. Would be glad to hear your comments!
>
> Oleg.
> --
>

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] At what point does a mailing list become counter-productive?

[Navid Sadikali]

I like the single mailing list and second the Gmail approach, it is all in
one fun.  You can easily browse the threads and skip entire conversations.
There seem to be about 5-15 active threads a day, which is a number easily
browsed and not in any way overwhelming.

Navid
 ps: Keep IXDA separate from your regular inbox. Here is my Gmail filter

Matches: IXDA
Do this: Skip Inbox, Apply label "IxDA"


On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Alexander Livingstone <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On gmail however, the list is a joy. The way it deals with threading
> is a godsend and it is so much easier to ignore what I'm not
> interested in, as it is only listed once. If something you've ignored
> is popular, it is easy to dip in and see if the thread has taken an
> unexpected turn that I want to read.
>
>

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] UX Design Process

[Navid Sadikali]

Hi Jonathan.

Whatever way you break it down, here are some keys to building design into
product development:

a)  Making user research an upfront part of your process - don't let someone
else do the research and then have designers work from other people's
insights and premises.  Designers must be connected with the user on a human
level to spark their intuition. You have to *be* with users to do that.
This is especially relevant in the medical environment where there are vocal
personalities such as chief administrators, who usually don't represent your
target persona.To sum up: don't let users out of your sight :)

b) Making sure requirements are created in concert with the design - you
can't have someone do the design and another person be responsible for what
the product must do from a "requirement perspective."   Push for a single
set of technical requirements with the design linked in.   To sum up: marry
the design and the textual requirements.

c) Making sure requirements are allowed to change through the process.  The
only reason textual requirements don't change is because they are high level
- so high level that *sometimes they claim to represent the "what" not the
"how"*...a statement which should be soundly refuted but which has not
been.  Every requirement I have ever seen embeds pivotal design decisions.
Design is a "what & how" - it's key that the process represent that.  Try to
keep the requirements and design "live" and visibly changing through the dev
effort.This motivates development that you're working with them and will
accommodate development ideas and trade offs.  To sum up: build a process
that represents change throughout - I've heard the term managed chaos,
that's really what it is like.

As for Agile, the effects of Agile on a project are best observed from its
philosophy.  Its philosophy is pro-scientific - we don't
have knowledge unless we have a systematic method to get knowledge and data
to prove we have it.The effects on a project of this scientism include
statements like:

a) we don't want to do too much upfront work, because we can't know what's
good or bad or true apriori - leaving little place for
revelation/intuition.

b) we don't want to go too far without feedback, because feedback tells us
what's important - leaving little place for discernment and judgement

Despite being pro-scientific, advocates of the agile philosophy don't
appreciate some back of the envelope logic.   Namely, that there are an
infinite number of paths to go down at every step of product development and
you aren't going to cover even some of them with Agile.   From figuring out
"why" some problems are worth solving for a user and others not, to figuring
out "what" problems are worth building solutions for and others not, to
figuring out "how" to construct a solution that fits the problem or not* the
space is huge*.   Nobody truly believes you're going to be able to build,
test and iterate at all of these (why, what, how) levels or even one, or
even on one small branch of one.  There are a gazillion ways to create and
place just two buttons on a screen and each arrangement affects what the
user experiences.   So the question of "what should this product *be
like*" can't
hope to get timely answers from applying the scientific method, a huge
amount of bias, intuition, judgement and skill must be used to navigate the
huge space.  For a product that is going in front of users and have
interactive behavior (i.e. the interface), an interaction designer has the
skills to navigate the space.  For a product that is going to operate on
CPUs (i.e. the code), an engineer has the skills to navigate the space.

To practically work in an Agile environment you must counteract its
pro-scientific philosophy with what??...you guessed it...scientific
evidence. You must present upstream user research as data points and present
downstream validation of design prototypes as data points.  You must
evidence through practice that design doesn't have to take sooo long to
counteract the "wasting time while we could be iterating" mentality.  You
must show design ideas that "come from nowhere" lead to unexpected positive
outcomes.  You must frame negative outcomes from a lack of design on certain
projects as evidence of the need for more design.   Through time, this
evidence will give confidence to development that design and a designer have
a place in the process since there is evidence it is working well and leads
to better outcomes.

Intelligent design will win in the end.

Navid Sadikali




On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Abbett, Jonathan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The materials I've found about "process"

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Perception of light / relative brightness

[Navid Sadikali]

Elise,

I design products for radiologists and I have a background in neuroscience.
Your question as stated may be too broad.  Let me breakdown your question
first:

 *how sensitive is *the human eye o changes in rightness?

- we are sensitive on some level to a massive amount of changes, wikipedia
dynamic range


> Equally a person can see objects in starlight (although colour
> differentiation  is reduced at
> low light levels) or in bright sunlight, even though on a moonless night
> objects receive 1/1,000,000,000 of the illumination they would on a bright
> sunny day: that is a dynamic range of 90 dB.
>
- mediums such as CRT displays have a paltry contrast ratio of like 100x (if
you physically measure the whitest white it puts out 100x more light than
the blackest black), whereas print film is more like 1000x.   So mediums
cannot reproduce the types of changes in the real world.  That is why
photographers have to work so hard to fit the real world into the medium
:)   (too much dynamic range in a scene and you're getting clipping at white
or black!).So, the human eye is
how sensitive is *the human eye* to changes in rightness?
- which human?  radiologists can have high sensitivity to small changes in
brightness that may be pathological, but unseen by the
untrained.   designers can see single pixels that are #CC instead of
#DD in a sea of millions of pixels.  experience builds sensitivity.

- the human eyes at first levels in the retina is made for detecting and
boosting change.  Individual neurons will negate output from neighbours to
boost contrast of edges.  For example, white text on a black background is
perceived as a brighter than on a black background.   At a deeper level in
the cortex visual system there is object processing that negates changes in
brigthness across an object (we don't see changes across a wall being struck
by different light sources), and boosts changes between objects (but we
easily see a similarly lit object as standing out from the wall).  Our eyes
are first and foremost designed as a system for visual perception.


how sensitive is the human eye *to changes in brightness?*
**
 - as mentioned by others, simultaneous comparison and memory comparison are
two very different types of "change" - side by side stimulus change, versus
stimulus/memory change


When I've been asked questions like this as you have, usually they are
starting from the vantage point of.  "Let's find out about how the eye
works, and see if there is research that studies the very thing we are
working on to get us our answer."   Rather, it is more like "take the
potpouri of research which tells us about complexities of visual perception
and use that as a starting point to envision some designs that may work on
the problem." Usually the best use of this human science is to
aid/inform the intuition of the designer.   Rarely are the answers in "the
back of the textbook" with this stuff... if you provide us more context we
maybe able to help more.

Navid


On Wed, J un 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Elise Edson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Specifically, how sensitive is the human eye to changes in brightness?
>
>

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Perception of light / relative brightness

[Navid Sadikali]

Ooops... that should be "For example, white text on a black background is
perceived as a brighter than on a gray background."

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:15 AM, Navid Sadikali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Agile & UXD

[Navid Sadikali]

At my company I observed that

- Agile helped the develpment team's motivation as they worked in smaller
timeblocks, did less each timeblock, and had something to show at the end of
each timeblock.  Further, they did implement the idea of "paired
programming" which counter to their ideas before doing it, was actually more
fun and helped people bounce ideas of each other.  I think the
reorganization and focus (morning meetings) helps the dev teams cohesion.

- Agile did nothing to help design and make a product closer to the user's
needs.  The teams often drove themselves around preexisting designs we had,
and weren't too concerned about making each "sprint" verified/tested by a
user.   Basically, the Agile sentiment to "discover the product to build
along the way as you build and iterate it" pretty much did not pan out (no
matter if you think this infeasible, practically it was not viable to have
that much customer interaction).  Nobody called users or even had major
concerns about deeply understanding them, and nobody suddenly had epiphanies
with the little user feedback we did get.  In fact, a little so-so
feedback can actually be demotivating because as you know users can't
envision the final thing, and may be indifferent to something that is very
close to a major innovation but needs some quirks ironed out.

Design was just as essential, and needed to be more responsive to the way
development chunked and tackled work.

Navid

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Jessica Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> What are your experiences in an agile environment? What has worked for
> you and what hasn't?
>
>
>

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] New Gmail themes

[Navid Sadikali]

I went back to classic.   The classic theme has a blue background for old
mail and a white background for new mail.   None of the new themes have such
a bright contrast difference that lets you tell new from old.   I think I
tried each one to see if they would show this contrast as well as classic.
Usability game breaker for new themes imo.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> That's exactly what I was thinking. I tried the Minimalist theme, but found
> some of the items had too little visual contrast for readability. I wanted
> to tweak the colours a bit.
>

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

[IxDA Discuss] "Design the design process" - anyone have programmer, business executive personas?

[Navid Sadikali]

Everyone always says that people in user experience should design their
organizational change process around design - ie "design the design
process."   In doing that has anyone modeled out a programmer, business
executive (eg CEO), product manager, programmer  "type" personas?   While it
is true these may not be the "target" personas in every business, in a
hi-tech software construction business, I suspect you'd see a lot of
patterns.

If anyone has even rough sketches of these "internal" personas to share, I'd
love to see them.

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] [EVENT] IxDA Waterloo: From Concept to Production: Prototyping with Expression Blend 3

[Navid Sadikali]

I'm really excited and I think this is the greatest thing since slice bread
for user experience/ix design.
I'm currently fighting with Flash Catalyst to sufficiently bring life to
some Fireworks sketches, so that the interaction concept is made real.  It
doesn't work all that well, and there is a lot of tweaking but it is totally
worth it.

So much of interaction design happens through time. While designers may be
good at envisioning how designs unfold and behave in time when looking at
static screen mockups, I know the people we collaborate with are definitely
not so adept..
.
I for one, hope that it enables me to better "the story" of what we're
trying to build...I don't even mind if it doesn't nicely integrate into
development platforms.

Navid




On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Scot Angus  wrote:

>
> Would love to hear what Dan and Nathan's objective opinions are of
> it (Eight Shapes?). In fact, if anyone is evaluating, I'd love to
> hear thoughts.
>
>
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=43118
>
>
> 
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
> Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

[IxDA Discuss] UX Presentation to the CEO?

[Navid Sadikali]

Does anyone have any good slide-decks or talks that you would reference in
creating a presentation to the CEO?
Goals
- make them see the void without design
- suggest an alternative to feature-lists going directly to engineering
- inspire them on a business level, educate them to a "Business Week" level
of design thinking
- suggest the cultural changes that are necessary and the change that must
occur

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

[IxDA Discuss] Design Strategy / Business Rethink - How to communicate

[Navid Sadikali]

As interaction designers we're often working at a "form and function" level.
 But sometimes we need to work at a higher scope.  It turns thats what I
need to do.  As a result of design research the company may need to rethink
the problems it solves, the personas it targets, and the business model.
 Upper management has an inkling this may be true, but is waiting to see how
the market plays out.
Obviously, building a detailed design spec isn't called for.  Yet, the
business needs some format to envision and conceptualize the possibilities -
with the goal of allowing business and technical actors to start to rethink.
   What is needed are lightweight illustrations of "experience possiblities"
and of business models attached to those.   But even more, is getting the
right players engaged in the ideation.

Does anyone have good examples of what lightweight "strategy and experience
maps" might look like?   Has anyone has success at this level - any tips?

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

[IxDA Discuss] Applications w/ built in "Show me"/Learning Mode/Player Piano?

[Navid Sadikali]

I'm wondering if anyone has any references to a applications with a direct
in-context, "Show Me" capability?  (with live mouse motion?)
Similarily, would love to learn about apps that have attempted a learning
mode that plays through a
scenario on a mock data set - I guess like a flight simulator that is
"player piano'ing" a flight path on autopilot
and has good in context training.  Now that I think about it I'll check out
the latest from MS Flight Simulator...

If people have attempted such a thing, but got stumped I'd be interested to
learn what architectural challenges you encountered.

Thanks,
Navid

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] This is our process, need your input

[Navid Sadikali]

Generally, it is great that you're thinking through this...that means people
are committed to UX.
I'll list some areas of consideration (may not be problems but might be
opportunities yet)

1)  Are designers able to do do user research? (outside of usability
testing, in a raw setting).
It is amazing how this will give them empathy for what people really are
doing, what motivates them..their goals...attitudes to technology. Empathy
for a designer is a motivating force to cut through the chase of features
and requirements, to give people what they want. Without this insight and
strength, the designer is often trying to cram stuff in, taking it on faith
from a product owner what people want.  Having real user research at hand
designers can make calls like "you know what, I know we wanted this feature
but based on user X and user Y ... I feel we're not going to be able to
deliver it to them in this way...instead though, I think we can make them
really happy with this alternative."   If a designer - who's responsible for
meeting user needs - isn't challenging the organization's beliefs about what
it needs to do and what people want then something is probably wrong with
that designer. That's what they are paying for!

2) In most dev shops, a really novel interaction can stump dev and thereby
challenge the design because it can't be achieved.
The best way to avoid is to get that stuff solved in an iterative phase
(call it agile if you want, but its not the same as big A Agile), where
design and select devs work together.   Then when you've proven it can be
done you wrap up all the specs and the architecture -- and move into
production.  This is strongly advocated by Alan Cooper
here.
 Don't swallow Agile whole.  What is it going to give you?  I think the
little "agile phase" perspective is the enlightened perspective and will
take root because it best aligns with the underlying needs of the business,
the designers, and the developers.  Look into it at least.

3)  Designers should be involved while dev is ongoing (before testing) to
make sure things are going in the right direction. Very big and obvious
things can change when dev starts cranking, and you need designers to be
right there lockstep.  Devs love this because they want to make sure things
are right, and want to discuss roadblocks/alternatives.  You will have big
problems if you treat this as purely a QA function, because developers hate
reworking something.   I remember working 1:1 with devs when they started
coding and being amazed by the number of things that I thought were obvious
in my spec, but devs never even noticed.  If we missed those things early
the ship would gone quite a way off course - and we'd have to rejig our
ultimate destination.  Devs aren't as attuned to interaction design and
visual design stuff - no surprise it is not their job to be!

Any org that does the above 3 things is a couple of standard deviations
above the norm, and guaranteed to be successful imho.  Anyone who can
operationally make the above 3 things happen in an organization, will never
be out of work - there is infinite nascent demand for this.

Navid



On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Jonathon Juvenal wrote:

> This has been on my mind a lot lately.  I feel like our process is
> very fast and accomplishes the right things, but I don't have much
> to compare it to.  It'd really mean a lot to me to know your
> company's design process and to gather any feedback you have on the
> process I outline below.  I'm looking for ways to improve what we
> do.
>
> So here's how we do design at onegreatfamily.com:
>
> We are a small company, we have 8 developers.  We consider ourselves
> an "Agile/Scrum" shop.  We have 2 designers, one assigned to the
> windows app and one assigned to the website.  The designer has 10
> business days to do the following:
>
> 1. Gather requirements from the CEO and VP of marketing.  Typically
> those two have provided the designer a one sentence "task" they
> want to accomplish.  So the designer queries them for the initial
> details.
>
> 2. Based on the size of the requirements gathered, decide how much
> they are going to be able to do in the 10 days they have to design.
>
> 3. Talk to lead developers if there are any uncertain technical
> issues that the designer anticipates.
>
> 4. Quickly draw up wireframes of the primary flows in whatever
> fidelity is important based on the requirements.
>
> 5. Present the initial wireframes to the CEO and VP to discuss and
> gather feedback.
>
> 6. Make changes to the wireframes based on the feedback.
>
> 7. Conduct user labs on what is drawn up so far either with internal
> non-project people (like customer support) or by bringing in our
> target customers.  Sessions are usually 45 minutes and done with
> paper prototypes.  2-3 people are brought in.
>
> 8. Makes changes and/or discusses issues with CEO and VP.
>
> 9. Add all visual design details if not already

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Applications w/ built in "Show me"/Learning Mode/Player Piano?

[Navid Sadikali]

Hi Alex,
I checked out Homeworld, and you're right it is really cool.  The
instruction mechanism occurs inside the game itself as certain scenarios.
It must have been complex to build, such that you have free access to do a
lot of things - for example it says "Use Ctrl-select to highlight and attack
a ship."  (ample use of voice commands in the step by step tutorial)
however, most of the game is free - in that you can move around as you wish.
 In some tutorials, you need to right click and select an option as the
"next step" and in those, the only right click option that works is the one
they asked you to press - ie the controls adapt to the tutorial!   Pretty
slick.

Thanks for that example!
Navid

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Alex Hogan wrote:

>  Navid,
>
> There's an older game that has an excellent example of something close to
> what you're looking for.  It's called Homeworld.
>
> Extremely complex applications have provided exactly this type of
> instructional methodology.  These expert systems will detect when a user is
> either not following the prescribed process or seems stuck in a process or
> workflow.  They will then prompt the user asking if they want some
> instruction to aid their progress.
>
> For what you're looking to do you might consider introducing a shell
> application that resides over the existing application that you are wanting
> to present show me simulations for.  This application can be launched when
> the "host" application is launched.  You can use a concept matrix to create
> as many varied scenarios that you wish to present to the user given any
> condition.
>
> The reason I say to shell this instructional module is to provide the
> modularity necessary for easy access to updates and modifications to the
> instruction.  The use of the concept matrix allows you to easily add
> additional scenarios without having to recompile or disseminate the entire
> application.
>
> Personalized and guided instruction like this is very effective in
> providing just in time knowledge to a user.  However it can be extremely
> expensive to develop correctly, but once developed can be adapted to almost
> any application that you develop.
>
> Thanks,
>
> alex*hogan*
> --
>
> *Information Architect**
> voice:* 972.977.6821*
> email:* alex.ho...@lmsarchitect.com *
> web:*  www.lmsarchitect.com
> *linkedin: 
> **http://www.linkedin.com/in/alexhogan*
> --
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:02:44 -0500
> > From: navid.sadik...@gmail.com
> > To: disc...@ixda.org
> > Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Applications w/ built in "Show me"/Learning
> Mode/Player Piano?
>
> >
> > I'm wondering if anyone has any references to a applications with a
> direct
> > in-context, "Show Me" capability? (with live mouse motion?)
> > Similarily, would love to learn about apps that have attempted a learning
> > mode that plays through a
> > scenario on a mock data set - I guess like a flight simulator that is
> > "player piano'ing" a flight path on autopilot
> > and has good in context training. Now that I think about it I'll check
> out
> > the latest from MS Flight Simulator...
> >
> > If people have attempted such a thing, but got stumped I'd be interested
> to
> > learn what architectural challenges you encountered.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Navid
> > 
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
> > Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
> --
> Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces Try 
> it!
>

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] back on magic - frog design

[Navid Sadikali]

In my vision the two views collapse into one.  One thing we that we can
readily agree on is that design "lives" in the minds' eye of the one
experiencing it.  No matter whether the design just allows survival
(usability, function) or affords magic (rising above seeming constraints).
 Given that design lives in the mind of the "experiencer", then surely magic
also arises there too.   So what is magic
then?

It arises when design *effortlessly* connects intention with result - it
meets the goals of the user with such little impediment that it *almost
seems like magic*.  With design, I believe magic *must be a meaningful
surprise.   *

As an example of where there is meaning and thus magic: suppose I found a
way to effortlessly let you connect with the computer such that subtle
movements of ones fingers could control appliances, on/off switches on the
wall and other such things from a distance...well that would be magic!
There is great meaning to this interaction, I can control things I already
do, but now with a great ease -  thought-to- action with almost no
impediment.

As an example of where there is no meaning and thus no magic: suppose I
found a way to let you effortlessly open a ketchup packet with a subtle
brush of the fingers on the ketchup packet...well that would be banal.
 There is little value to this interaction, a problem not needing to be
solved. While the technology may be magic, it is doubtful that anyone would
care much as it isn't a meaningful problem to anyone.

I would argue that the goal of the designer is bound to the problem at hand.
 When the stakes are opening a ketchup packet, maybe usability or function
is just fine.   But when the stakes are much higher, when audience may be
eager for a tighter connection between effort and result then magic may
arise in the design.

Navid

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Dave Malouf  wrote:

> I for one WANT to manipulate the world towards change. My change. My
> ideals.
> That fear is dishonest because every form of design is a manipulation, an
> insertion into the cultural pool. Anyway, I found it interesting that it
> isn't just us talking about this.
>
> -- dave
>
>
>

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] To spec or not to spec?

[Navid Sadikali]

I can't believe some of the commentary on this thread.  The overwhelming
problems of software in the modern world are as a result of whats going on
in this thread!  Specifically the problems are

1) *There are many people (product managers) writing functional specs where
the contents are disconnected pieces of "abstract feature stuff."*  For
example, the user says "I need to do xyz so that i can meet this goal" and
the product manager says ok "let's add a button that let's the user do xyz."
  XYZ is never really designed, with more than a casual thought.   Whether
XYZ is the best way to meet the users goal is only mildly considered, maybe
there was a UVW way to do it which wasnt a button at all.  Neither XYZ nor
UVW are really drawn out visually, nor tied together in an end to end
scenario, and without that even nobody internally really knows how XYZ will
behave in the milliseconds after you click it, nor think through how xyz and
abc - an older feature- or zyx another new feature -  may conflict.  If a
user was consulted ("is that what you said? you wanted a button for xyz?")
they will nod their head, because at no point in time is the experience
actually illustrated to the user!  So they are imagining something that
doesn't even exist, which ding ding ding, they can't do and neither can
anyone else!   This is the most dangerous product design process known to
man!   There is no design!  Just features!   We all march along in
agreement, but we all are almost 100% imaging different physical
implementations!

2) *There aren't actual trained interaction designers researching,
prototyping and detailing the interaction design of the product!  * Without
people who can do this, and yes these people must understand how to help
dovetail with dev constraints, many projects fail to deliver an experience.
 They may make the check on the functional spec, but they aren't designed
for all of the soft qualities of experience - learnability, findability,
discoverability, usability, pleasure, beauty!

If the world is going to see that design means something - and that there
are people who do it and have skill in it - we have to deconstruct the
mythology around this.

*> In the end, all that matters is an effective product. *

True but this seems to suggest there is no connection between the process
and the result.  How many bad mp3 player companies after their functional
spec was written and dev started rolling forward were suddenly going to push
out an iPod?   What if all that matters is having a design that people love
and then going to the ends of the earth executing on it.  Ya of course we
will have to make hard decisions along the way because of technology and
schedule.

*- Responding to change over following a plan*

Absolutely worthless statement.   If you had an abstract non specific plan
then it is going to change because it isn't a fleshed out plan (only a rough
suggestion), and the statement is tautological.  But if your plan was
something marvelous and very tangible, then changes are just what you have
to do to achieve that marvelous outcome.

*I just discovered some behaviors this past week...there were no "artifacts"
discussing them.*

That is normal for most companies.  Things get built haphazard and you hope
for the best.  Some of what gets built is useful but is impossible for users
to find it, so those code paths never get tested and of course in the
abstract functional spec its not there.  I assure you interaction designers
do need to exist to focus on the behaviors across the feature set, across
all the buttons, across all of the user paths.

Finally, I know this is a big leap of faith because many have not seen a
good interaction design process in action, so you're used to walking along a
vague set of inputs and then waiting for unknown outputs of the process.
 Inevitably though, these people are all in agreement that if* they were
funding* the project out of pocket they would expect to see a specific plan
on what the product is going to look like and how users will use it *before
*the development started.

Navid

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM, ambrose little <
ambr...@goodexperiencedesign.com> wrote:

> Despite protestations to the contrary, nobody--certainly not I--would
> advocate that you don't need to communicate what needs to be implemented.
>  It's a question of how it is done, and traditional func specs are but one,
> very poor (IMO) way to do so.
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:12 AM, paul bryan  wrote:
>
> > I think the
> > dimension that segments the responders is the degree to which the
> > people writing the code are separated from decisions about design, in
> > a physical distance, process, or organizational sense.
> >
>
> This can be true, but Scott
> Amblerhas been
> researching, thinking about, and writing about the different
> contexts in which Agile plays, and specifically distributed and large teams
> via his agil...@scale
> blog<
> https

Re: [IxDA Discuss] [anthrodesign] Norman replies to Nussbaum

[Navid Sadikali]

untability into these efforts.  Sometimes
companies fail because they became so focused on their technology (versus
their users), at which point everyone moves on and the industry rewards them
for the experience they gained at their last outfit.  A lot of the effort in
the tech industry is wasted effort.

What about corporate design teams you ask? If they exist, they are there
mostly to soften technology's rough edges for human use and provide
"lipstick" to boot.  Let's not mistake these tweaks on existing technology,
with a potential world in which human needs are placed front and center in
envisioning what new technology must be created.

*A New World Focused on Human Needs First Is Possible*

Where Don Norman is in a blur - and I'm not sure how he got himself in it -
is in taking the 5 large successes of 100 years and saying "see that's the
way it's done!  it's the technology that comes first! And the engineer
guides it!"  Talk about drinking the koolaid! What would the world look like
if a new set of "grand ideas" was made the focus of technology, and the
synthesis skills of designers were brought to bear on problems of a
different sort?  What if the problems were soft ones, or system-level ones,
or nuanced ones but even more lucrative ones?  How do we get great designers
(who tend to be polymaths who can hone in on people's needs and consider
technological constraints) to work with scientists and economists and
psychologists and musicians to push technology driven by unmet human needs?
 I admit that refocusing engineers and redirecting their efforts with design
and design research will not be easy, it is an immense cultural and
political challenge.  But if I am right, when the money is tight more
projects will be led by designers because investors will be more selective
in what they sponsor.  Projects with a well researched premise, and a proven
set of unmet human needs coupled with some innovative design vision will
drive what technology needs to get built.  Designers will get more of the
"grand ideas running" in the future.

What a cruel joke it is that we go to Best Buy and see a gazillion similar
cell phones and scream "What a wonderful world! They did it!", but I can't
go to a bookstore and find something that will teach me a language (and
provide analysis and feedback on my speaking) or a music store and find
something that will teach me how to play guitar with all the subtleties that
might entail.   As you move away from hard technology to almost everything
else you realize what a small swath of the world we are innovating in
because of a GAP of WORLDS.   Don Norman you've fallen into that gap.  You
are an important figure so crawl out and see the light!

Navid Sadikali
User Experience Designer

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] iPad.

[Navid Sadikali]

I think these observations are on track - what people's wives need ie
what *most
*people do in terms of computing.

Computing on a mass scale as envisioned by "ubiquitous" computing a few
years ago was pointless.
Fridges that track when you are out of milk etc...light bulbs that run
software inside them...it was technology looking
to fit into our lives.

Yet, the problem of using the CPUs we already have was still there.  We're
becoming chained to the net, but we're also
chained physically to our laptop.  Widespread dissemination of digital media
- basically the internet is still not a solved problem...
getting youtube, and online newspapers and the www into the hands of
everyone to compete with the TV.  Not a solved problem.
I am sure user research would show that many people do not walk around the
house with their laptops (designers are probably an exception!)

I think Apple really lives by the idea of bringing content to the masses
through Design.  They may not have got all the nuances
of what that means right in this release, but they will.  The nuances
include the form factor in your hand (have they made it natural at
1.5lbs), the durability of it after a fall,  the battery life (really
10hrs?),  the radiation and heat (is it really going to be cool to the
touch?),
and the general usability when textual input is required.

Navid

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Luke Wroblewski  wrote:

> To me this is the market for this device. My wife is exactly the same, she
> surfs the Web, reads blogs, watches TV & movies, and looks at photos on her
> Macbook. This is a couch device, a bedroom device (don't read that the wrong
> way), a kitchen device (swivel it to cook from a recipe). All places where a
> laptop always felt wrong.
> I think of it a digital version of your leisure activities –reading,
> communicating, light gaming, surfing, etc. Not your work activities
> (PC/laptop) or your on the go activities (smartphone).
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 6:59 PM, mark schraad wrote:
>
> > As soon as they are taking them I will place my order for a couple. The
> wife's macbook is about to die and she basically surfs the web, uploads
> photos and checks email. The ipad connected by wireless to my home network
> (with more storage available there) will work just great. I also anticipate
> her being able to play music on the stereo and a hundred other things from
> the couch.
>
>
>

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Enterprise IT UI Strategy

[Navid Sadikali]

watch out for when the company doesn't have the resources ($ or people) or
insight to
actually do interaction design in each application, but instead asks for a
"manual" or
style guide.  The technologists/CTO will usually ask for this in his naive
view that
if there was a guide, then he could have every developer make easy to use
products
that all fit the corporate brand.

the best you can do is present some visual design guidelines and some brand
rules,
and maybe some overarching patterns.  however, one of your tasks is to  make
them
realize that designing cohesive applications in a large space is not
paint-by-numbers it requires
designers.




On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Brandon Adams  wrote:

> I've been asked to develop a UI strategy to be implemented across our
> IT department for all our custom developed applications as well as
> user facing vendor systems such as peoplesoft, microsoft dynamics,
> and several others.
>
> I'm a rookie web developer and UI guy that is transitioning into a
> IxD/UX role and this is my first large scale project of this nature.
> Can anyone provide some advice on how to start, what to consider, and
> things to watch out for?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Brandon
> 
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
> Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe  http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines  http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help