Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Austin Govella

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:18 GMT

I’d also like to see some of the thinking behind the new community features.

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:18 GMT

Would this be a review? It might be more useful as a comparison between several packages.

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:22 GMT

I agree with Donna, here. The idea is absolutely great. I’d love to read it.

At the same time, I agree that you cna leave it eneded, open a space for conversation, however, Donna’s right: if you don’t have your focus firmly nailed, it’ll end up too wishy-washy to be of any use, or to capture attention.

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:22 GMT

I think it’s relevant. In my world (and I might be reading Wayne wrong) functional specs are driven by the research and synthesis part of the process.

Tracking the a design’s functional specifications is a headache. I’m constantly forgetting why one feature was omitted and another was included.

It’d be great if Wayne could offer some experience or a system for keeping them organized.

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:22 GMT

But why is “apophenia” related to mental disorders? Makes me feel dirty.

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:22 GMT

I think this would be amazing. I wish I could offer to help, but even if you could only provide a broad overview with jumping off points for the industrious, that would be a definite boon to the community.

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:26 GMT

I agree with Dmitry about the Google Ads. And I’m not sure how much having them midway through the article will improve clickthrough.

I would enjoy related advertising on the homepage: ads for events, conferences, software, books, websites, etc.

Those kinds of ads would go along with my goals of visiting the site to keep up with the practice.

The overall design is excellent.

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:35 GMT

Very nice explanation of how to conduct and use competitive landscape/analysis.

Could you amend the article by posting a sample document for others to see?

Austin Govella — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:15:08 GMT

Donna, exploratory and don’t know… seem like very similar behaviors. Is the distinction between the two simply that exploratory has no specific intent where don’t know’s have a fuzzy intent? Or is there a brighter line you’re drawing?

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:48 GMT

So how do we reframe the issue so clients become disinterested in compliance and develop the interest in empowering both their clients, as well as themselves?

In a similar vein, how do we break the idea of accessibility away from disabilities and explain it as part of creating a cost-effective, loosely coupled client-side software system that preserves value for their enterprise architecture?

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:48 GMT

Scott, I think this is true if you’re trying to sell Accessibility to the parent organization. However, if your accessibility becomes a byproduct of how you create interactive products (I’m thinking about the web here), then it’s just icing on the cake.

I was just re-reading one of Dan Brown’s old wireframe articles, and he had a catchy turn of phrase I think applies here: if people are fighting over pie, make a bigger pie.

In this sense, if they won’t buy accessibility, sell something they will buy where accessibility is just a part of the package.

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:59 GMT

Awesome essay on students and masters, knowledge and wisdom.

Another much longer, but similar, book is Robert Bringhurt’s Elements of Typographic Style. The inclusion of best practices as well as clear discussions of the mechanics and history of typography make the book a tad heavy, but I wish there were books like these for all disciplines.

Austin Govella — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:02 GMT

This kicks ass. I don’t have any better words.

Very technical, but now we can evaluate the usability of our icons. Sweet!

Austin Govella — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:09:43 GMT

It’s true. The quality of the prototype affects the feedback you receive, but testing early on with lesser fidelity prototypes can be really valuable. Most teams should have a set of wireframe templates that leverage existing identity, visual styles, and common assets (like custom buttons, etc.). This is only really possible if you’re extending existing products. Working from these templates, the time to make your wireframes more “real” dissappears.

However, if the problem is users don’t understand the conceptual nature of the wireframe, this is as much to do with education and culture as it does wth the wireframe’s fidelity.

At the World Bank, user testing is fairly strongly embedded in the culture, and the usability guru does an excellent job of educating users as to what an HTML wireframe is, what it isn’t, and the purpose of the specific test. Users test both bare bones HTML wireframes as well as higher-fidelity, grayscale wireframes. The higher-fidelity wireframes had to be grayscaled because users believed color versions were work that had already been completed, and there’s a bias against critiquing already completed work.

A common reason for using lower-fidelity wireframes is that users may hesitate to provide the same feedback they would if they were presented “ideas” for the site.

At the other end of the spectrum, at Comcast Interactive, I’ve heard stories where hi-fidelity prototypes were interpreted as finished products by management who liked what they saw and mandated a launch.

The same education and culture issues come into play, but getting real is certainly not without its problems.

Ideally, your wireframe should be crafted with its use in mind. Documenting decisions for history or for feedback should create a different wireframe than one used for testing or another used for communicating design with the rest of the team.

Austin Govella — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:38:03 GMT

This was cool, and I definitely think it needs more exploration. Specifically, guidelines (and anti-guidelines) so designers can more easily make their signifiers more ambient.

Tufte might offer some additional examples as well. His recommendation is to always use the least possible difference.

I can’t remember which book, but in one (or several) of his books, he has some nice samples where he’s redesigned really aggressive pieces and communicated more effectively by removing entire design elements, muting colors, and lessening the presence of of other elements (like type, lines).