Imagine that.
On Dec 30, 2007 12:43 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So in other words you were just being argumentative in response to my
> post. Got it.
*Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah*
February 8-10, 20
On Dec 30, 2007 10:38 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Can you explain more what you mean by "mental model of the system?"
>
The primary function of neocortex is pattern prediction. I use "mental
model" as synonymous to the mental pattern.
Thus the one of universal principle
Because I rarely take the time to check my writing thoroughly
enough... (Bad habit, I know, don't ask. I only tend to read over it
once.) I've been using the word "principal" instead of "principle."
Ugh. Please forgive the error and know that I'm only this imprecise
in email since I hate ty
On Dec 29, 2007, at 9:57 PM, pauric wrote:
> Andrei:"what are the other 2/3 of the story that I'm apparently
> missing"
> you:"product design is not user centered nor technology centered. It
> always has and always will be both."
>
> Maybe my math is a little out of whack??
That was a complete
On Dec 30, 2007, at 12:20 AM, Oleh Kovalchuke wrote:
> This principle extends beyond fingertips. For example: my car is
> extension of my body, wii is extension of my arm.
This is very true.
> The more the direct manipulation confirms to the mental model of
> the system (including the refle
Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
"The principal has largely to do with how all direct manipulation should
strive to behave like an extension of ones fingertips. To get
a true sense of control over any interface -- and that's the real
crux of any interaction with an interface for any digital device,
that
Andrei:"what are the other 2/3 of the story that I'm apparently missing"
you:"product design is not user centered nor technology centered. It
always has and always will be both."
Maybe my math is a little out of whack??
you:"The original question posed was are there design principals that
live ou
On Dec 29, 2007, at 8:37 PM, pauric wrote:
> How the 9.8m/s/s is applied to rocket science and bungee jumping are
> two completely different contexts for that universal law.
> The same can be said for universal laws of design, yes.. they hold
> true and if you try to break them you'll fail. How
Andrei:"It's like gravity. You can choose to ignore it but it's
still there keeping you alive on planet Earth without asking for any
compensation in return."
How the 9.8m/s/s is applied to rocket science and bungee jumping are
two completely different contexts for that universal law.
The same can
On Dec 29, 2007, at 3:56 PM, dave malouf wrote:
> That being said, what is the point of these great "laws of the
> properties that we manipulate as designers" when their
> interpretations and utility differ so widely across so many different
> axis?
I'm not quite I understand the extent of what
Andrei,
I was just provoking someone like yourself to so brilliantly tell me
I was wrong. ;)
That being said, what is the point of these great "laws of the
properties that we manipulate as designers" when their
interpretations and utility differ so widely across so many different
axis?
-- dave
-
On Dec 27, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Dan Saffer wrote:
> So you feel that everything is contextual, that there are no universal
> principles of good design that are always true?
To which Dave replied...
On Dec 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, dave malouf wrote:
> Of course, at a biological level we all receive sign
I think it's a great idea to catalog universal design principles,
Dan, and optionally to illustrate them with use cases. I agree that
the manifestations of the principles could be very different in
different cultural contexts, and I think that would be important to
convey too.
I love Murli's exam
The principles is just some general solutions to some problems.
As Elements of Style says:
"It is an old observation that the best writers sometimes disregard
the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will
usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the
cost
There are probably several on this list who have grown up in two or more
substantially different cultures. Here are a few observations from that
perspective.
Flipping through the pages of UPoD, I find nothing there that COULD NOT be
considered universal. After all, we are the same human species,
pauric:
> Oleh:"Therefore they can be applied to heuristic evaluation of OLPC."
>
> To what end?
1. My comment was about the applicability of heuristics based on universal
design principles as a method to evaluate OLPC design.
2. As an excercise.
> To measure success?
? Can heuristics measur
Oleh:"Therefore they can be applied to heuristic evaluation of
OLPC."
To what end? To measure success?
What is the primary goal with the OLPC, a successful 'design', or
to simply satisfy an enormous hunger for learning?
In the same way the UN & RedCross/Cresant dont fly Gordon Ramsey in
to famin
I have just looked through the book (UPoD). The principles described are
indeed those extrapolated to design from generic findings of cognitive,
behavioral psychology (gestalt, chunking, storytelling, framing, Fitts' and
Maslow's rules etc.) and physics, math (redundancy, self-similarity etc.).
The
oh! can i add one more thing?
Do we need such principles/heuristics to be good designers?
I would much rather rely on observational techniques and case study
analysis than guidelines and principles such as the ones being
discussed thus far.
Especially in interaction design as opposed to other de
My experience as an anthropologist has taught me to resist the idea of
trying to find too much similarity between peoples. It is often connected to
presumptions, prejudice, and arrogant hubris.
So I do agree that "do no harm" is a good ethical principle, I think that
dan was thinking more about he
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:08:36, dave malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Of course, at a biological level we all receive signals
> neurologically at the some level of commonality.
According to Pinker's "How the Mind Works", we are all the same more than
just on a neurological level. We have seve
Dave,
I wonder if the principles stay the same but the dialect changes?
I'm don't remember specifically how detailed UPoD gets with cross-
cultural issues, I'll take a look.
Kevin
On Dec 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, dave malouf wrote:
> wow! dan, you have no idea what you just opened up for me. My
wow! dan, you have no idea what you just opened up for me. My major in
college was cross-cultural psychology as an antrho major. My thesis
paper was on cross-cultural dream analysis.
Of course, at a biological level we all receive signals
neurologically at the some level of commonality. But I have
I think we need to make sure a distinction is made between "Principles" -
like Cooper-Reimann's "Do No Harm," etc - with Design Patterns - which most
definitely are dependent on context/culture/age/ etc...
>From the highest level of abstraction - things are a lot more universal -
but as you become
I'm looking at the table of contents of UPoD (my hard copy is at
home) and there are definitely some principles that I think would
apply no matter what the cultural or age distinction might be. For
example: chunking, affordance, archetypes, compassion, confirmation,
form follows function,
On Dec 26, 2007, at 11:21 PM, dave malouf wrote:
> b/c few if any of these laws came out of research on young
> people. They are all tests done on adults that have gone through the
> same level of socialization. And if my reading is correct all of
> these laws are based on research only done in
26 matches
Mail list logo
