Design vs Science
I was really surprised at how straightforward the article was written. Direct and no holds barred! It's always nice to read a paper from a "designer's perspective" as to "philosopher's perspective"), especially when I'm from Sch of Computing. Ha.
Back on the article, there's this discussion on design vs science, and particularly, eyetracking technology.
I have to admit that I would have agreed fully to what Christopher Fahey have said on the perks of design and the downside of science. My initial feel (and i always thought so) was that so long as the site is visually pleasing, navaigation is done properly, content organized in an uncluttered manner, the website can do its job of communicating information and serve its purpose. Design truimphs.
However, taking "NM5210 - critical interactive media design issues" gave me a really different light to website designing, or more particularly, enabling a positive communication of knowledge and ideas to the users. Although I have much trouble reading the papers and readings, I somewhat and somehow (i hope) am able to grasp some key insights as to what science is able to provide.
Of cos, if the website is mainly just about "our products" "about us" "contact us" etc, then design truimphs in doing so, and user research can pretty much suppliment the goodness of the website, without much help needed from science. But then, cognitive science is really something that designers should have in mind when designing stuff, and that carrying out experiments is rather crucial.
I had a hard time understanding cognitive science (and still do) because the scope of this term is extremely large. Psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, computer science, and biology etc. But then, from the papers that i've read, it seems to indicate that design and science are "separate entities", i.e. to say, most designers are not made known to science's research based principles.
Designers usually apply design principles, like norman's visceral, behavioural and reflective, affordances, feedback, mapping, visibility etc, applying ad-hoc principles to their website designs, and do not take much into considerations of the science's portion, things like scaffolding and learning theories etc. There seems to be a gap needed to be bridged between design and user research, with science and its theoritical, empirical studies etc, in order to provide users with websites that are both functional and provides UX.
Convincing the boss / clients
It was really funny how the writer mentioned about convincing the boss or the clients, throwing in all sort of "supporting documents" to induce them in giving them the nod of a job well done. Having some personal experience on freelance jobs and school projects, it is somewhat diffcult to convey the design issues to them, esp when one doesnt know what he or she wants, or when they dont browse their own websites often. I edited the mario pic that he posted in his article, and hopefully, he can use or try this tactic in the future. Who knows? It might work . :)
The bullshit thingy is quite humorous though. Finding means and ways to clinch deals. There's really lots of issues for one to ponder.
Designing something u think is good
Designing something u think end users will like
Designing something u think boss will like but u know clients wont like
Designing something u think clients will like but end users wont like
and the list goes on...
No comments:
Post a Comment