Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Andres Zapata

Andres Zapata — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:39 GMT

Right on. I can’t tell you how times I felt like I was really making business recommendations than organizing content. Often, large companies create barriers across operational units that are completely functional and logical to them – but are impenetrable to users needing to perform a task that spans across these units. It got to the point where I had to go back to school and get an MBA so that I could talk the talk and walk the walk – and to tare down the “what do you know, you are just a web designer” stigma. In one recent experience, we helped Hopkins Nursing discover and address some significant issues with their international recruiting techniques and processes. Yes, IAs can (and should) be catalysts for change.

Andres Zapata — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:22:07 GMT

Google Desktop has a (big_brother_type) feature that keeps track of EVERYTHING you do on your computer – this can be sliced by whatever (mainly date) – very powerful. I thought of that while I was reading about “re-finding.” What can we learn from Google? (and no, I don’t work there) :)

Andres Zapata — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:46 GMT

Go for it! I am interested in exploring the intersect between symbol and meaning (or metaphor) and its implications to our designs. Culture and language are BIG parts of this discussion – I look forward to your piece.

Andres Zapata — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:49 GMT

Bruce and Sanjiv – both of your comments are along the same vain. The one thing that I am now realizing is that the images included here don’t flow as well as the presentation does in PPT. In PPT, it is very clear which bubble the client should be focusing on at any given point. Future use of this method will include bubble numbering and adding visual focus on the “active” bubble. Good thinking. Cheers, Andres.

Andres Zapata — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:49 GMT

I’d be interested in reading this. But I am having a hard time understanding the train of thought. In my experience, accessibility is about making sure that people with disabilities can interface with the product and ingest the information. But making a site accessible does not necessarily make it useful or user-friendly. Making something user friendly is on us, the designers, not the software and how it generates code. Perhaps that’s the point you are trying to make and I just didn’t read it carefully enough. Again, very interesting topic, go for it!

Cheers
Andres

Andres Zapata — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:50 GMT

Some very good – and passionate – discussion around these issues. Clearly, this is a source of anxiety for us all, and we are simply trying to feel our way through it. The second we think we have a handle, something changes and we have to adjust again. And that’s ok, as long as we continue to share and learn from each other. For example, I wish I hadn’t had to spend the time to develop, document and then write about this method. I wish I had read about it here, picked it apart and made it my own.

In response to The Dashboard Spy: I haven’t had much luck designing on the fly with clients. Mainly because one change that we do on the fly might have up or down stream effects that we can’t think about right there on the spot. I see the value in what you are suggesting because it would reduce time – but only the short run. In the long run, it is better to take the time to think it through than to get people excited about something that might have issues as code begins to be written. Although, it might just work for pre-developed and designed products such as yours.

Andres Zapata — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:50 GMT

This is very good. This has worked well for me before. I have, however, gotten into self-inflicting versioning wars with this method. It gets confusing, after a while, to keep track of the module version and their relationships to the parent documentation version. Have you had much luck with that? Additionally, my computer’s performance does suffer when I have too many linked files per page. Thank you for documenting and sharing. This is excellent!

Andres Zapata — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:58 GMT

I agree with Sarah, metaphors are a power tool. Metaphors are symbols. A symbol is the understanding that someone has about a specific social artifact. For example, a red octagon at an intersection means “stop”, an arrow pointing to the right at the upper right hand corner of a web page next to a form filed means “execute this search criteria”, someone winking at you in an casual conversation means “don’t take this too seriously”, etc.

My point is that symbols are socially constructed – I don’t think Sarah would disagree with me, but it is a point that needs attention. Using metaphors or symbols can be very tricky because not everyone is going to understand them, especially in a global context. As globalization continues to cannibalize our worldview, we need to start thinking about developing or digressing to a more common social vocabulary. A vocabulary that is concise, generic and meaningful. If our goal is to communicate successfully, then it is important for us to leverage communicational shortcuts in common language not in highly specialized and potentially alienating metaphors.

Using metaphors and symbols is powerful. No debate there. It allows people to feel like they belong to a larger group of people that “gets” the meaning. And they do save time and rhetoric. But they also alienate certain cultures and subcultures.

It always goes back to your target audience, I guess. If you think they will “get” it, then use it.

So, the question is “what is the common language?” Certain metaphors are generally universal that we can adapt, such as knobs, buttons and switches. What are other metaphors in our common social vocabulary that we can use, borrow and change?

All in all, good thinking piece. And I look forward Part 2 of this article.

Andres Zapata — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:05 GMT

Wow. This is very good! Although, I am sad to find out that my squint test is no good :-) So, making good icons is very important. Granted. But I can’t help to think about if graphic designers shouldn’t take this article and substitute the word “icon” for “billboard” or “print add” or “TV commercial” or… er… well, you get the idea. Good work.

Andres Zapata — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:14 GMT

Scott,

Creating wireframes have worked really well for me and every other IA professional I have talked to. It is not a perfect method, granted – but the alternative can be catastrophic. I have gone down the path that you have described, and some times, I admit, it worked out well. The client had really well formed ideas, robust funding, and a healthy schedule. Having said that, the success rate on that approach is very low and most clients that I have worked with don’t have an appetitive for endless spin. As a rule, I try to put some stuff on paper before I have anyone start hacking at code. Code is much slower to put together than paper comps – and I say that with unwavering certainty.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t feel safe if a team of builders just started building a house without at least a sketch so that everyone can say “yes, that’s the direction that we want to head in.” Yes, I know they are different metaphors, but the idea of arriving at a collective understanding before substantial work begins is a no-brainer.

Andres Zapata — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:18 GMT

Shiv, nice work. Lots to get excited about, and like everything else, lots to be cautious about. Sometimes I get worried about the power of the crowd. I am not a total believer that the crowd is right. I am more of the “herd mentality” type-of-guy. People are too engaged and pre-occupied with their own nonsense to be critical and support an opinion based on what they really think instead of where the tide is going. If you don’t believe me, as yourself this question: how many times have you dugg something without first reading it? Be honest! ;) Group intelligence is something I have a lot of respect for, however, so there is a balance in there… somewhere. Again, good work.

Andres Zapata — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:49:21 GMT

Wow, great article – even better discussion!

In my experience designing interactions for higher education, financial services, b2b, health care and non-profit, search in general is a tool used by people who can’t find what they are looking for right away or people who know precisely what they are looking for and poses the vocabulary to get good results.

Regardless of simple or advanced search, search is used to find stuff (no duh, I know). My question is this: how would progressive search or even super-duper-complicated searches like the one found on google.com help users find the same information the second time they go looking for it?

Granted, this question is irrelevant for sites where content is transient, such as Expedia or Ebay, and for sites where the search index is always changing such as Google and Yahoo – but I insist this is an important question for sites where content is more fixed than it’s not.

Progressive searching could be a great way to help people find what they are looking for, but I my gut tells me that its implementation would be more useful and appropriate for transient content.

Different sites have different search needs. Some sites don’t (and shouldn’t) have searches at all.

Andres Zapata — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:12:47 GMT

Interesting article, than you! We’ve had great success with similar techniques, it’s great to see that procedural patterns are beginning to develop around these activities. It becomes easier to convince clients that stuff like this is a good idea when more and more IAs are following a similar path to user need/behavior discovery.

As discussed, the benefit of doing stuff like this is also to create data and knowledge that backs your design decisions. When just user surrogates are interviewed, however, we are missing out on several opportunities. Yes, it’s a lot more work and more money to interview real users and other constituents, but if it’s possible, we should always aim to collect data from them as well. It makes the overall picture more complete and it gives people (especially if you fold in key stakeholders into the interview process) a sense of participation – which leads to buy-in. The extra work (even if you have to eat the time) is worth the extra texture, unearthed dimensions, and overall buy-in.

Andres Zapata — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:33:53 GMT

Hi,

This is great. Thanks for putting this together. I will certainly try this method. Every prototype I’ve done so far (mainly HTML) have taken up way too much time. Maybe method can make the difference!

Quick question. Do you find that clients get “stuck” on the “fineshed” nature of a prototype? One thing that I really like about wireframes is that clients “accept” the nature of the nature of what wireframes are for. The more finished my wireframes are, the more “design” expectations they begin to have. And that’s not as important early on in the project.

Thanks,
az