Boxes and Arrows: Comments by David C Dunkle

David C Dunkle — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:28:11 GMT

Another practical topic to consider: the security of your incentive method.

Cash and gift cards have a level on anonymity that goes with them from test to use. Once those incentive items disappear from your lab, it’s hard to know who really has them, or who really spent them. Of course, it’s not difficult to make sure your participants do get paid, however, it is sometimes difficult to make sure only true participants get the incentive.

Specifically, I was once leading a team when one of our members was quietly stealing gift cheques meant for participant compensation. Because of the ease in “repurposing” gift cheques, and also due to the laxity in our bookkeeping, this continued for over a year, and added up to several thousand dollars.

Surely, a stricter accounting policy would have helped, but personalized checks would have also eliminated the problem.

David C Dunkle — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:39:30 GMT

Regarding formulas and/or methods for innovation: There has been a significant amount of innovation created using the TRIZ methods. Check out the TRIZ online Journal for more data. I mention it because it seems to directly support the concept that, ”...that there can be a step-by-step guide to innovation.”

Sure, plenty of innovation is performed in uncharted territory, but a map, like the TRIZ methods, can get you where you’re going quicker.

David C Dunkle — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 01:39:24 GMT

I chuckled at Dan’s metaphor, “The IxDA is definitely the AK47 of the UX world!” To extend it a bit more, perhaps each is a powerful tool in the hands of a willful revolutionary; a vehicle designed to break the oppressive shackles that limit mankind.

But it’s not a “perfect” metaphor, is it? Clearly, there are object differences. IxDA membership, for example, is not discouraged in the UK, and the organization has an effective range far beyond 200 meters. There’s also that pesky legacy of the weapon to deal with. “AK47. When you absolutely, positively have to kill every [person] in the room.”

I suggest a different metaphor; one with healing attributes. “The IxDA is definitely the polio vaccine of the UX world” Hmmm… Maybe, ”...the Muscle Milk™ of the UX world” or, ”...the Baby Einstein™ of the UX world”?

Perhaps an Interaction 08 lightning session could select the best.

Happy Holidays to all.

David C Dunkle — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:39:28 GMT

Your article represents the type that should more often appear here in B&A; one that addresses the foundational perceptual and mental constructs of information architecture. But you have provided so much information that, for me, it was hard to take it all in while reading. I believe the reason for this was my effort to transfer the information to long-term memory. It’s just the sort of stuff we should all be applying daily.

One question I have: You stated, “When presenting information onscreen, text and visuals are not as effective as seeing visuals and hearing narration.” This is quite a blanket assertion- do you really think it applies comprehensively? For example, what about complicated graphs, where portions of the graph need to be identified? I would think that labels work better than verbal narration in those (and other) cases. In any case, some examples of the research you cited would be helpful.

David C Dunkle — Wed, 16 May 2012 22:56:36 GMT

I take away a different lesson from Leonardo’s nightmare.

Perhaps he was not afraid to fail in the kitchen, but without him having very much domain experience, one could have predicted that he would fantastically fail, as he did. His design may have been futuristic, but failed in the realm of basic usability. Why did the food burn? Because the cooks couldn’t use the new oven correctly. Why did the conveyor belt fail? Because the task completion times were not properly integrated into the design. Basically, if Leonardo had done a better job planning and designing, his plan and design would have executed fine.

We all see things like this happening every day in industry. A brave proponent fearlessly pushed his design forward, assuring all with his confidence that it will work wonderfully. When it doesn’t, it becomes easy to see why it failed. Yes, we can learn from failures, but what about not failing in the first place? Being afraid to fail does have its place- it makes us recheck, retest and rethink ideas before execution, so failure may be averted. Had Leonardo had a little more fear of failure, to replace his visions of grandeur, the event might now be known as “Leonardo’s Great Feast” rather than his nightmare.