Boxes and Arrows: Comments by David Malouf

David Malouf — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:39:42 GMT

Christina, I think this is one of the best and most useful articles I have seen on B&A for a long time. No disrespect to the other authors, but I love the way you put this together. It is really so clear, concise and really follows the example of the point you are trying to make.

I think there is a book in there, if you are interested in going that route again. A UX Design Guidebook. I don’t think anyone has outlined it quite as well as this in the past and it would be such a great resource for the UX design community, indeed.

Basically, I’m hungry for more of this thinking and elaborations and collections of examples (good and bad) in each case. Maybe it would fit in a book in Rosenfeld Media size? Or could be done in a series.

David Malouf — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:36 GMT

Other tool offerings that do “prototyping” (Where in the world did the term “simulators” come from for UX designers?

Adobe Flash/Flex: You can create data sets in XML, and generate real elaborate interactions.

(upcoming)
Microsoft Expression: Interactive Designer: Just like Flash but for WPF/E.

These simulators for the most part—the ones mentioned above—differ from the tools I mention here in that they are also document management systems or have some connectivity to a document.

David Malouf — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:01:54 GMT

Oh! I agree that different contexts will require different levels of abstraction. Teleperception may be as abstracted as we get, but may lead to amazing interfaces for example.
I’m not sure about graduating to CLI. I’ve tried to make Enso (Humanized.com) part of my life and just couldn’t make it more useful than my current mouse-based gesturing systems that I’m so used to. But I like the steering wheel example.
Another way is the two lever steering of a tank where you direct the tracks to go forward or back and you steer by increasing or decreasing speed of the wheels on the left or right side to go in the proper direction, like using a wheel chair or rowing a boat/canoe/raft/kayak. To me that has more abstraction but also leads to more efficient and proper interaction.

But for digital systems, I do find in general so far that lowering the abstraction layer is better so long as that abstraction layer is designed well. Ergo MS Windows Mobile while capable of touch-screen interfaces is not nearly as good at it as the iPhone. It just wasn’t designed well to do it.

David Malouf — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:39:42 GMT

Wow I’m so flattered by the incredibly thoughtful discussion going on here based on my article. I want people to know that these types of amazing analytical responses are exactly why I write for good zines like B&A. It gives me a thrill to be engaged like this. I acknowledge that I do not have all the answers (I also acknowledge thanx to my editor, I had 2500 word maximum, which is an extension from the usual for B&A).

Great comments from EVERYONE and why people think they are disagreeing with me, I think the nuances that make IxD so compelling for me are what people are getting at. It is so hard to get specific enough (especially in an article) to fill it all in.

Using the twiter markup that Terry started, I’m going to start at the bottom and jump around from there.

@Paul
Yes, I mean the components of the interaction design itself. “Goals & Motivations” are part of the context of the problem space, but do not make up the interaction. This is similar to how I separated out the “form” elements that Dan Saffer discusses in his book as foundational elements of IxD. All design has Gloals & Motivations of the user that they must acknowledge and they are integrated into the whole.

@Matt
Nothing to say here. I think this is a great extension and clarification of what I am thinking as well. Thanx for doing that.

@Jerry
I love this clarification that the cultural, sub-cultural and even personal psychology will have a dramatic effect. This is why it is so key to have great models of your personas (See About Face 3.0) that try to include cultural, cognative pieces. I think there has been great work about the social vs. the individual for example between US and non-US cultures on a continuum.

@Terry
Thanx for the CLI example. Aza Raskin is going to be speaking at IxDA Interaction 08 | Savannah in Feb 08 (interaction08.ixda.org) and while he isn’t speaking directly on one of his favorite topics, CLI, he will probably love to talk to anyone who is doing work or otherwise interested in CLIs.

Now to the meet. I think I agree and disagree w/ you about the choreography issue. I see what you mean about the collaborative nature, but someone needs to be driving the vision. If all the design disciplines are equal partners I feel that leads to a muddied vision. To me all the design disciplines are working together towards a goal of creating and communicating interactions (in this space anyway). So while I’m not trying to create a land grab here, I do see it that IxD stands in the conductor’s podium. Sometimes a conductor’s job is to make himself invisible, even make the composer invisible and let the virtuoso take center stage. This may mean let the ID or IA shine through, but to me someone has to lead this by putting the total IxD narrative in the right light. It is like a director who is able to really let an amazing Cinematographer go to town, or a production designer. I mean what would the “Fifth Element” be with Godier’s (sp?) amazing costume design and the other production artists? I think this happens a lot with Apple’s products which really make people feel that it is the visual design that is most important to their products (the total form factor), but that is totally just a gateway “bluff”. It is the ease of adoption through the enticement of that gorgeous interface that leads you to the real meat in their products, but that play that is being done is key to the total interaction design that is being presented. I would even say there are usability weaknesses in that strategy that lead to better user experience and interaction design overall.

David Malouf — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:39:42 GMT

Ok, so I’m sitting here writing my slides for my course I’m teaching for SmartExperience.org (Interaction design of rich web applications) that starts this Wed. (6 2hr. classes). (Yes, that was an obvious placement advertisement.) and it occurred to me that in Terry’s comment above he was assumes that CLI is less abstract than a WIMP (or GUI) interface.

I think I have to disagree. While typing something out is definitely easier from a Fitts Law perspective so long as the number of keystrokes required is kept to a minimum, the act of describing your actions in non-direct linguistic forms is actually more abstract than the act of navigating & pointing-&-clicking. I’m sure there is some give and take in here as some elements are more abstract and some are less in both interaction models, but I think the assumption that CLI is less abstract is actually a false one from my subjective off-the-cuff analysis.

Maybe Aza can chime in here? I’ll poke him to the discussion.

David Malouf — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:03:37 GMT

Hi Whitney,
I think one thing happening in our community might be differently stated than “growing” is that the community is becoming more inclusive of other spheres of interaction design than where we started. Our beginning was squarely on interaction design as defined by “The Valley”, but today European perspectives from RCA, Copenhagen, Italy, etc. have been gaining momentum in the community. This perceived “growth” of sphere is less a redefinition of IxD, but rather IxD working towards connecting its various incarnations.

—dave