…design intervention. But we don’t have to experiment with Fast Checkout to test our entertainment and speed hypotheses (and anyway, we can’t – Fast Checkout is now Done). The beauty of having high-level “motivational” hypotheses is that you can test them in various different ways across projects and teams. A digression on hypotheses: Sadly, many “hypotheses” you see written down are not very useful beyond the contexts of the immediate experiment….
Tag: pontification
Designing and building software is at least as complex and demanding of intellectual labour as the building of ships, large buildings or suspension bridges. If the number of failed software projects is anything to go by, perhaps it’s is even more difficult than these. In modern history at least, the underlying assumption when performing complex…
…tively mature content to have a heads-up display make compelling sense. In comparison, things like gesture interfaces or speech recognition were essentially solutions needing problems. With Glass, the content and capabilities have come first – and that, if nothing else, is new. Anyone who has used Google Now will know where the basic Glass experience is going to start. A lot of the debate about whether Glass will take off is about privacy. The fac…
(If you’ve come to this from Twitter, I’m just testing my new Twitter WP plugin with this article) Shortly after I wrote up some thoughts on test-driven UX, I happened to notice “Bridging User Research into Design” over on UX Matters. In the article, 11 of the great and the good offer their thoughts on…
…t arrogance? Laziness? Or simply lack of education? I don’t know. Jonathan Compromise extends to not being able to communicate the design to those that may need to know about it before its implemented. It also extends to not having the ability to test or iterate on the design, and it extends to not knowing that a technical limitation exists. So I agree with you when you characterise design as compromise. There are many reasons for this, and I woul…
…hnology, like a chair or a bottle opener. In contrast, the iPad is a sleek computer. It’s also married to the utter abomination of iTunes, the experience of which you cannot avoid when thinking about the use of the device overall. Computers are of course wonderfully engaging things that provide infinite possibilities for everyone. Just ask Stephen Fry. They’re multi-faceted fun when they’re being good, but run out of power, depend on the net too m…
Having watched a bit of Steve Jobs’s presentation of the iPad this evening, and having thought about the concept of what is essentially a large iPhone on which you can’t make calls or view Flash, I naturally got to thinking. Will the iPad be a success like the the iPhone and the iPod before it?