Re: control, data, users

Yes, I agree with both.  Having a model is great for giving terminology 
and evaluating edge cases.  User-centric design requires observing users.

My more important point earlier was we should work in the concrete and 
not spend too much time in the abstract.  We should pick one, two, three 
problems and go solve them.  We can develop the model and methodology as 
we go. 

Perhaps we could start by documenting the FSM for a few of the existing 
mechanisms?

--Brad

Mike Beltzner wrote:
> On 1-Nov-06, at 2:00 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
>> Same here, once you are faced with drawing out state machine diagrams 
>> for the user side of a task you start to see the value of eliminating 
>> unnecessary steps.
>
> Sure, but I think Brad's point was: are state machines the right way 
> of thinking of users, as opposed to some more accepted model from HCI 
> techniques?
>
> I work in the field of HCI, and would agree that designs should be 
> tested early and often in front of real users to ensure that 
> assumptions about behaviour are well founded. With so many IBMers in 
> the group, perhaps we can get some donated time from their User 
> Centered Design groups to run some of these user feedback sessions.
>
> In addition, I think we should look at building up some repositories 
> of user profiles and tasks so that we can start from a foundation of 
> understanding who we're designing for (what terminology do they 
> understand? what real-world parallels might they be able to relate 
> back to?) and what it is that they're trying to do (shop? bank? 
> subscribe to a newsletter?)
>
> cheers,
> mike
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2006 23:32:22 UTC