About this site's lack of design: Yes, it's supposed to look this way — I'm helping create a new sandbox theme for WordPress (see it on GitHub).

Dan Rubin's SuperfluousBanter

Suffering from chronic idiocy since 1977

Archive for January, 2004

Older

Friday Update

Friday, January 30th, 2004

It appears a lit­tle clar­ity is needed: the book cover posted pre­vi­ously was an exper­i­ment, both in design, and to test reac­tion on a num­ber of lev­els, though we have had ideas for such a book on the table for quite a while (any inter­ested pub­lish­ers should drop us a line — we’ll do lunch).

The new agency, to be unveiled soon, will be self-publishing a series of PDF’s, of var­i­ous lengths and top­ics. The first is near­ing com­ple­tion, and will be pub­lished early next week. More details will emerge soon (regard­ing both the pub­lish­ing and the new agency), but rest assured the PDF series will be well designed :-)

Also on the list today: Lis­ta­matic, Russ Weakley’s ter­rific col­lec­tion of clean CSS list styles, has a new addi­tion. The nav­i­ga­tion cur­rently used on this site (as of the 2003 redesign) is now avail­able via Lis­ta­matic, in an easy to re-use dis­tilled format.

And keep your eyes on Dave Shea’s upcom­ing entry into the mar­ket, Bright Cre­ative — I’ll place the first bet that his will be an agency to watch for quite a while.

Categories:

4 Comments

How To Design User Interfaces

Wednesday, January 28th, 2004

Note: the image below was posted as a bit of an exper­i­ment, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, fol­low­ing a brief Pho­to­shop skir­mish between Didier and me. While no one has com­plained, I have one thing to say just in case: Zeld­man, please don’t kill us ;-)

How To Design User Interfaces

 

Categories:

15 Comments

Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics in Hypertext Documents

Wednesday, January 28th, 2004

What are we talk­ing about? Seman­tics is a topic that has been much dis­cussed
last year and still remains an impor­tant issue (although it’s becom­ing
some­what of a buzz­word. Hype or real­ity?). This post is not aimed at dis­cussing
the value or impor­tance of seman­tics as such, but rather its gen­eral frame­work
and its appli­ca­tion to hyper­text doc­u­ments and web sites in general.

Semi­otics

Semi­otics is com­monly known as the gen­eral sci­ence of signs. Semi­otics is com­posed
of three aspects: a syn­tac­ti­cal aspect (syn­tax or syn­tac­tics), a seman­tic aspect
(seman­tics) and a prag­matic aspect (pragmatics).

Syn­tac­tics (Syntax)

Dif­fer­ent forms of data exchange are con­sti­tuted of signs or com­bi­na­tion of
signs (lan­guage, code, non-verbal signs — among oth­ers). Syn­tax defines
a set of rules to be applied when exhang­ing data, thus “the rela­tion­ship
of signs to what they stand for”. Break­ing these rules results in a syn­tac­ti­cal
dis­tur­bance. An exam­ple of this type of dis­tur­bance in human data pro­cess­ing
are spelling errors.

For exam­ple, using an ele­ment spelled <stronk> instead of
<strong>. But also ommit­ing a clos­ing tag on empty ele­ments
such as <img>. The related DTD
(Doc­u­ment Type Def­i­n­i­tion) or more recently a Schema
(XML)
con­tains the rules that define the cor­rect spelling or appli­ca­tion of (the signs
that con­sti­tute) an ele­ment (note: in XML the num­ber of ele­ments are unlimited).

Seman­tics

Seman­tics applies to the mean­ing of data. When exchang­ing data sender and receiver
will have to assign the same mean­ing to par­tic­u­lar (com­bi­na­tions of) signs,
thus “the rela­tion of signs to the objects to which the signs are applic­a­ble”.
If this con­di­tion is not respected a seman­tic dis­tur­bance will occur. An exam­ple
of the above men­tioned dis­tur­bance is a dis­cus­sion between two indi­vid­u­als not
being able to under­stand each other.

The mean­ing (or con­text) of spe­cific ele­ments is what we com­monly refer to
as the seman­tic value of code. There­for the use of <p> ele­ments
is jus­ti­fied in the con­text of a para­graph and like­wise <hn>
n{1,6} ele­ments are used to rep­re­sent head­ers in a doc­u­ment. Fur­ther­more ele­ments
have to be nested cor­rectly. For exam­ple — in a (X)HTML doc­u­ment —
an <h1> ele­ment can not con­tain a para­graph. The DTD or Schema
explicitely con­tains nest­ing rules. How­ever it can not eval­u­ate if the con­text
of a par­tic­u­lar ele­ment is seman­ti­cally cor­rect. Cur­rent val­ida­tors check a
doc­u­ment for syn­tac­ti­cal errors, but remain lim­ited in their apti­tude to dis­cern
issues related to seman­tics. The ques­tion remains if it’s tech­ni­cally
pos­si­ble to build an analy­sis tool spit­ting out sug­ges­tions regard­ing the seman­tic
value of a doc­u­ment. Dan Ceder­holm started
a prac­ti­cal ini­tia­tive known as Sim­ple­Quiz
— dis­cussing the seman­tic value of ele­ments in hyper­text documents.

Prag­mat­ics

This aspect describes the effect a par­tic­u­lar sig­nal has on the behav­iour
of the receiver, thus the “rela­tion of signs to (human) inter­preters”.
If the effect is dif­fer­ent from the senders ini­tial inten­tion a prag­matic dis­tur­bance
occurs. A suit­able exam­ple are speed delim­iter signs found on most roads, with
var­i­ous applic­a­ble val­ues. No spelling errors have been made and the data is
cor­rectly inter­preted by both sender and receiver — yet some dri­vers ignore
this sig­nal by speeding.

Prag­mat­ics relate to some extend to usabil­ity. How will a user (receiver) act
or react to a given con­di­tion, sit­u­a­tion or sig­nal (sender). It’s become
best prac­tice to avoid under­lin­ing reg­u­lar text in doc­u­ments (empha­sis), and
reserve this prac­tice exclu­sively for hyper­links. Abstract­ing from con­text,
syn­tax nor seman­tics for­bid the above men­tioned prac­tice. How­ever, under­lin­ing
text that is not a hyper­link (or ommit­ing to under­line a hyper­link) results
in a prag­matic dis­tur­bance — users expect a hyper­link to be under­lined
(and vice versa).

Resources:

Categories:

4 Comments

Design and Usability: Part 3

Sunday, January 25th, 2004

If the two words design and usabil­ity are men­tioned together
you can be sure that user test­ing will fol­low within a few sen­tences
or para­graphs — at most. But what about the steps taken before throw­ing
your design to the lions? Start­ing a web project implies col­lect­ing and defin­ing
nonex­clu­sive fac­tors that will influ­ence how things will look, feel, com­mu­ni­cate
and function.

You Don’t Start With Usabil­ity Testing

I’m not talk­ing about user test­ing (or user needs specif­i­cally), but
rather generic top­ics that influ­ence the level of inter­ac­tiv­ity, func­tion­al­ity
and even­tu­ally usabil­ity. (Un)fortunately there’s no golden rule or set
of axioms which can be fol­lowed or imple­mented dur­ing the devel­op­ment of any
given web site or user inter­face — each project has dif­fer­ent require­ments
(on all lev­els). For exam­ple: a news site is not an online shop and a weblog
is not a search portal.

Not hav­ing a pre­for­mat­ted or stan­dard­ized list of (all) ele­ments and details
to imple­ment at your dis­posal dur­ing the design phase, does not mean the entire
process should be unstruc­tured. I think a col­lec­tion of global denom­i­na­tors
can help struc­ture the process and make sure the design fits the pur­pose of
the web site (goals). Before I men­tion some of these generic fac­tors which guide
and direct (to a cer­tain degree) a design process, let’s look a bit closer
at how such a process would apply in practice:

Structure, Guidance and Direction

 

How Design and Usabil­ity Relate

As depicted above — generic fac­tors orig­i­nate from exter­nal
enti­ties and vari­ables (i.e. the world). I don’t think many projects
would end up being suc­cess­ful if inter­nal fac­tors and pref­er­ences were to be
taken into account exclu­sively. Design and usabil­ity flow from a sen­si­ble and
bal­anced mix­ture of both inter­nal and exter­nal infor­ma­tion. Draw­ing from my
own expe­ri­ence, dis­cus­sions and projects with Dan, an aca­d­e­mic arti­cle enti­tled
What
Is Beau­ti­ful Is Usable
” by authors N. Tractin­sky, A.S. Katz, D. Ikar
and com­ments
made by Andrei
Herasim­chuk
(who cur­rently works for Adobe
Sys­tems
and has worked on the inter­faces for Adobe Pho­to­shop, Adobe Illus­tra­tor,
and Adobe InDe­sign), I’ve come to the con­clu­sion that indeed “the
per­ceived aes­thetic qual­ity of an object or sub­ject is intrin­si­cally locked
with how users expe­ri­ence func­tion­al­ity and usabil­ity” (adapted from a
state­ment
pre­vi­ously made by Andrei). But I disgress…

Dude, What About Your Generic Factors?

I’m con­fi­dent that every designer worth his salt has already come up
with a few generic fac­tors that influ­ence design and usabil­ity deci­sions. Design
and usabil­ity are even­tu­ally about com­mu­ni­ca­tion and inter­ac­tion (HCI).
Below I’ve summed up some of the fac­tors that could be taken into account
start­ing a project:

Above I’ve tried to answer four ques­tions: Why? Who? What? and How? These
generic fac­tors will enable the def­i­n­i­tion of how design and usabil­ity will
be imple­mented through­out the project. Does this mean we’ll get it right
from the start? Not likely. We’ve merely estab­lished a hypoth­e­sis —
we think or assume it might work out as planned. It’s at this
point that you throw your design to the lions (the beta testers or an exter­nal
pool of users). The lat­ter is a process of trial and error — dis­cern­ing
and adapt­ing ele­ments that did not work as expected (back to the design phase
and pro­to­type) and keep­ing ele­ments that have a pos­i­tive or intended effect.

This Is Not an Exact Science

Nat­u­rally I’ve abstracted some ele­ments or steps in the process. Fur­ther­more
design and usabil­ity are not exact sci­ences. Thus 1 + 1 often does not equal
2; it’s more along the line of 1 + 1 equals some­thing you didn’t
expect
. Feel­ings, opin­ions and per­cep­tions play an impor­tant (if not deci­sive)
role, but they’re sub­jec­tive (dif­fi­cult to struc­ture). The best thing
we can do is work towards an effec­tive out­come. An out­come that is unfor­tu­nately
con­sti­tuted of fac­tors, ele­ments and dri­vers of which most are (partly or com­pletely)
unknown.

So what’s your take on the sub­ject? What fac­tors do you take into account?
Did I miss any? Where do you put the empha­sis: aes­thetic qual­ity or func­tion­al­ity
— or is there no trade-off nec­es­sary (both being intrin­si­cally linked)?

Categories:

3 Comments

Zlog Interview Online

Friday, January 16th, 2004

After much delay (which I take com­plete credit for caus­ing), Ronan has posted his inter­view with yours truly.

An extra bonus for those of you who have never seen me in per­son: the inter­view is accom­pa­nied by a photo…

As the opin­ions expressed in the arti­cle are now a few months old, some may not accu­rately reflect my stand on cer­tain top­ics, but rather than have Ronan re-edit the inter­view, I’ll instead let them remain as-is — it’s inter­est­ing to read how my thought process has changed due to projects I’ve worked on, and dis­cus­sions I’ve had since I first answered the inter­view questions.

Feel free to post your thoughts, ques­tions, or crit­i­cisms in the com­ments of this post — since it’s a pub­lic inter­view, I don’t mind mak­ing the dis­cus­sion pub­lic as well.

Categories:

2 Comments

Older