Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Weston Thompson

Weston Thompson — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 05:46:39 GMT

In _Envisioning Information_, Tufte wrote, “to clarify, add detail” (p.37). I’m a great lover of the notion of simplifying things (posters, traffic configurations, web pages, apps, radios) to make them more useful and more usable. So this comment from Tufte really grabbed me. It has probably made me think more than any other Tufte comment. I keep it mind when I am advocating to simplify a page by removing features or details. It makes me think critically about when it really helps to strip away. Granted, I may not be able to provide the data density and the micro/macro that Tufte loves about something like the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial, but it’s good to remember that _it depends_.

I also think Norman’s notion that complexity sells has some power to it. Maybe this is related to our “reptilian minds”?? The reptilian mind recognizes that people say they want X (appeals to cortex) but in practice seek out Z because it speaks to their reptilian mind. So, you can’t just listen to what people say.

Can I spin this back around to Norman who points that people will buy the gadget with more features (complexity)? Sure, even if people buy the more complex thing, it doesn’t mean they like using it or can use it more effectively. So (1) recognize the reptilian pull and design for it on one level (to get people into your product) but also (2) understand what makes for the actual best user experience once inside the product and give that to them. There may be appearances of complexity at play alongside carefully designed simplicity.

Whoa, I am giving myself a headache…. Now if I can only show how this relates to Tufte’s comment that I started with: Maybe it’s the balance/relationship of the macro/micro readings at work.

Weston Thompson — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:10:27 GMT

I like this idea for using PDFs as prototypes, and I intend to add it to my toolkit. There are times when you need a more advanced prototype and want to work with your coders/developers for that. There are times when paper is the way to go. There are times when doing your own ugly HTML is the way to go. I like being able to scoot up and down the spectrum depending on my time, the project’s constraints, and what we need to learn at the time. Thank you Kyle, for this nice how-to article.

Weston Thompson — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:09:29 GMT

In usability tests, I’ve seen users naturally scroll. I’ve also seen them not scroll due to a “cul de sac” in the design that made them think they were at the end of the page. In general, my gut tells me that people like to scroll up and down a page to get a sense of what’s on it, just like I think people like to scrape the mouse across the screen to see what happens. Of course, both of those behaviors can be foiled when pages are too heavy / are built in such a way that they don’t render quickly and you can’t scroll soon enough. I have a hunch that people’s willingness to explore the full content of a page (instead of just eyeballing what’s above the fold) might have more to do with how fast the page renders and how fast they can engage with it – instead of the mere notion that content might be hidden below the fold. Hmmm… research idea?