Nach Dave Malouf gibt es 8 Bereiche die ein gutes Interaction Design ausmachen:
1) Understanding: Do I know what to do, how to do it, and is the system response clear.
2) Meaning: Are the functions of the system meaningful to me, my life and to my cultural context.
3) Value: While this feels close to meaning, value implies an economy that meaning doesn’t require. Even if time & effort are the only currency of the system, there needs to be a perception of value for an interaction design to be good.
4) Engagement: This has many components to it, but in the end the system has to be one brings me in on both a cognitive and an emotional level. But for me it is best described in having an element that pulls your attention, and can even increase your motivation for participation.
5) Fit: While Meaning is very contextual, things that are meaningful don’t always fit against the other behaviors in our lives. It is important to fit on many levels, or if you are to disrupt, the disruption needs to use novelty in order to create a new “fit”. If you think to yourself, I can’t imagine ever not having done things this way before, it’s a good fit.
6) Emotion: How you feel is going to make all the difference.
7) Impact: Does the design meet not just the outcome goals, but the strategic impact goals that were set forth. Robert Fabricant (doesn’t seem to be on Quora) in his keynote at Interaction 09 available here: http://ixda.org/resources/robert…
8) Responsiveness: Interactions need to be responsive. Yes, this is about performance, but it is also about appropriateness of the response. Not all responses can or have to be “fastest”. I can also imagine contexts where “delay” in response might be appropriate.
“When confronted with a problem, have you ever stopped and asked why five times? It is difficult to do even though it sounds easy. For example, suppose a machine stopped functioning:
1. Why did the machine stop? (There was an overload and the fuse blew.)
2. Why was there an overload? (The bearing was not sufficiently lubricated.)
3. Why was it not lubricated sufficiently? (The lubrication pump was not pumping sufficiently.)
4. Why was it not pumping sufficiently? (The shaft of the pump was worn and rattling.)
5. Why was the shaft worn out? (There was no strainer attached and metal scrap got in.)”—Eric Ries: To Get To The Root Of A Hard Problem, Just Ask “Why” Five Times | Co.Design: business innovation design
Guter Artikel von Louis Rosenfeld zur Verbesserung der User Experience bei bestehenden Webseiten mit tollen Illustrationen von Eva-Lotta Lamm. Konzentrierte Eingriffe durch bessere Suchergebnisse, fokussierte Inhalte und Funktionen basierend auf priorisierten Nutzer und Business Bedürfnissen.
Interessanter Artikel (Danke für den Link @wiederkehr) über Designprozesse und deren Anwendbarkeit in der Praxis. Wobei die Anwendung der “Rule of three” sehr viel mit Ideengenerierung/Konzept und Prototyping gemein hat.