Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Colleen Jones

Colleen Jones — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:45:26 GMT

I love the references to rhetoric here. Clasically, ethos and pathos have different definitions than shown here. Pathos is the appeal to emotion, while ethos is the appeal to speaker credibility (which for UX professionals could be website/brand/company credibility). But I think mapping these concepts to UX and web application models still applies.

I also like the cross-channel focus and the emphasis on communication. Communication is not just a website purpose (informational vs ecommerce/transactional) but something that occurs in a website regardless of its purpose.

Colleen Jones — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:07:22 GMT

Reading this article was a pleasure. It raises substantive issues in an articulate and personal way. On shallowness, I think that’s a challenge several related fields face. One factor I’ve noticed is that we tend to propose or use new names for our fields, our roles, and more—frequently. I’m not saying we should completely avoid new labels. But to grow in our establishment academically and professionally, we need some labeling constancy.

Related to that, I greatly appreciated the points on history, and not just because I like T.S. Eliot. I’m getting “older” in this field and am amazed at how often I have seen colleagues (or even myself) discussing an insight as new, when it really isn’t. It may have a new application or permutation, but the essence is the same. It’s our awareness, not the insight, that’s new. Understanding our history can help us identify our true innovations.

Colleen Jones — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:04:45 GMT

Nice article! The point about personas are not just documentation is well-taken. In fact, I think most of the points in this article apply to most documentation we produce. The documentation is just the expression of the thoughts, the problem-solving, the design process. I agree in the short term we have to give the “beast” what it expects, but in the long term I wonder how can we change its expectations? I find that “beasts” can be anything from large companies to small interactive agencies…the production view of design seems deeply ingrained.

Colleen Jones — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:10:06 GMT

Thanks for a useful article. Risk management is an interesting lens through which to examine rating systems. I think it largely works. In addition, I think persuasion is a helpful lens because rating systems are trying to persuade users that the risk is worth taking or there is little risk. In persuasion, the credibility of the speaker / author is a significant factor in his or her ability to influence. The question is what determines credibility in the eyes of the user / customer? Looking at that from the perspective of different persuasion theories would be interesting. Also, ratings systems have much persuasive potential because they include a mix of rational and emotional appeals. The rating itself, especially an aggregate rating, comes across as objective and appeals to our rational side. The comments are more subjective and appeal more to our emotional side, as well as help us determine the speaker’s credibility.