Adding French philosophers to the equation mostly complexifies things.
“In the post-modern era, knowledge is being understood as information. In reality, knowledge is commoditized and objectified as decontextualized representations. More information may mean that the society is drawn into a critical phase where loss of knowledge occurs with the unlimited flow of information. Such ubiquitous information could lead to less understanding, less trust and less truth, which would erode rationality in the governance of the society. Using a framework based on Michel Foucault’s archeological methodology, i.e., unearthing how information and communication technologies came to be viewed as a source of truth/knowledge, this paper explores the question: Do ICT contribute information that can be construed as knowledge? Does this knowledge contribute to truth or to power? Do ICTs push an information society towards Foucault’s disciplinary society, where the so-called knowledge speaks truth to power?”
(Indhu Rajagopal ~ First Monday)
Designing interactions, designing media. The academic route.
“The article sketches the basic steps of a theoretically informed practical testing of opportunities inherent in the interfaces and procedures of communication. It is an experience-based technique for discovery and problem solving.”
(Lars Nyre a.k.a. @LarsNyre ~ The Journal of Media Innovations)
Using power words doesn’t make any opinion any better.
“It looks like Google’s Android UX team used a now-debunked research paper to guide much of their UX work. Does this mean the Android interface now needs to change? Probably not, and that might be worse. I’ll look at what this means and how we can be more careful when using research to inform our work.”
(MJ Parnell a.k.a. @Neovenator ~ Hopeful Monsters)
Design in a rollercoaster (against) due to technology disruption.
“Technology extends our grasp, making it possible for us to achieve our goals rapidly and efficiently; but it also places its own set of demands upon us. The fields of industrial design, graphic design, and software user experience design have all evolved in response to these demands – a need for a human way to relate to and interact with our new tools.”
(Jenn Webb a.k.a. @JennWebb ~ Radar O’Reilly)
In general, poor UX kills all human-facing digital applications.
“Because of the word design, UX often gets conflated with styling. But they’re not the same. UX is a problem solving discipline. Identifying problems, solving them and designing elegant solutions. Styling is often part of the solution, but doesn’t have to be.”
(Elaine Thompson ~ Huffington Post)
Enterprise software, the apps UX forgot. Use it or you’re out!
“Most big businesses globally are locked into some kind of reliance on enterprise technology. Unfortunately such systems are not only fiendishly difficult to install and maintain, but often equally challenging for the workforce to use. When the stakes are so high, why is the user experience of enterprise systems so bad?”
(Rob Gillham ~ Foolproof)
Update of a seminal post towards our new technological, social and economic reality.
“This is a huge revision. I expect I have made mistakes. Please leave corrections and suggestions in the Comments at the end. If you have better examples than I’m using, please include them as well, but give me enough information about them, including links or cites, that I can make use of them. This revision features new examples and discussion involving mobile, wearables, and Internet-connected smart devices. However, the naming and organization remains the same except for three changes: I have shortened the name of one principle to extend its reach: ‘Color Blindness’ is now simply Color and includes more than just color blindness. I’ve added one new principle, Aesthetics, and brought back two old principles, Discoverability and Simplicity. I dropped them from the list more than a decade ago when they had ceased to be a problem. Problems with Discoverability, in particular, have come roaring back. What has changed greatly is the level of detail: You will find many new sub-principles within each category, along with far more explanation, case studies, and examples.”
Galaxies and Copernicus, doesn’t that ring a bell.
“So with three different starting points – UX from product development, service design from service delivery, and customer experience from marketing and customer support – we’ve all arrived at the same place: the realization that by consciously crafting the experiences people have with those products, services, or organizations, we can help those people be more successful and find more satisfaction. Oh yeah, and it’s good for business too.”
(Jesse James Garrett a.k.a. @jjg ~ Adaptive Path)
Solutions always will create new problems, wicked ones this time.
“Apple and Google will not provide it. They are too big. They are not the solution. They are the problem. This revolution will probably come from some unsuspecting source, like the Maker Movement, or an independent group of people or company that is manufacturing physical goods. (…) we need to return to natural affordances that are as intuitive as putting a spoon in a bowl or carving the bark off a stick. The more natural the affordance, the less arbitrary the design. Designers will have to be less cocky, more reverent to human nature and physical nature. When real physical things start dictating how we interact with software, the playing field will be different. And software interaction designers will have to fully understand natural affordances, and design for them. That’s a revolution I can get behind.”
(Jeffrey Ventrella ~ JJ Ventrella Thing)
Always interesting to see the DTDT question answered again, again and again.
“The common misconception comes from the word design. Due to influence of fashion, design is often associated with aesthetics of the product. User Experience Design is much more complex than you think.”
(Tomas Laurinavicius a.k.a. @tomaslau ~ Despreneur) ~ courtesy of iatv