Gregory's Server@Maker completely wrong? So interfaces that require in depth explains are the only good ones? I think you may find that view unsupported by many real-world design and use processes.
|
6 comments
@davidaugust I do agree not every single element does require prior explanation (although it comes from patterns being learned either directly or via other life experience). An interesting (but not easily digestible) read on the topic is the ISO9241 ;)  @Maker good call, and good reference and wink on ISO9241. I think good documentation is vital, whether inline or separate like a manual. I also think most contexts should allow base usability without needing to use documentation. A round door knob is intuitive once one is shown but only if one is not differently limbed. However, a door handle (like pictured) even some animals may be able to figure out with no instruction or example. It is more accessible and typically more usable. A door knob is a tool, not an interface but let’s use it as a metaphor here: there are interfaces and tools that are learnable without instruction manual (and some of them might be great). However this being true doesn’t mean that interfaces requiring explanations and instructions are bad or poor. @davidaugust “completely wrong” has a double meaning here: @davidaugust Another thing: “explaining the interface” has been interpreted by a lot of designers as “I don’t have to justify my choices and my work” which contributed to the designer rock star phenomenon. |
@davidaugust (please keep in mind I have been a digital designer for 20+ years, I can’t summarize good design in 2 toots)
Your approach is “all or nothing” and there is no such thing when it comes to assessing an interface and the experience it contributes to. Interfaces take place inside one or multiple systems and it is naive to think that anyone can use an interface “naturally”. This assumption is how we end up with excluding/non-accessible/painful experiences.