These days, I find that the term ‘UIUX’ has just been randomly thrown around, a buzz-word of our time. I have also always just assume it was for only related to the tech field but after this reading, I have came to realise that this principle can also be applied to physical products, and services. Such designs are grounded by the root idea that it serves human needs and goals within certain constraints.
The reading makes mention of Alan Cooper’s Goal-Directed design.
One interesting thing I picked up from the reading is the question: Will it help users minimise work? under Principles. Work can be cognitive, visual, memory and motor. Truly this is why user survey is important. Sometimes, there are challenges that cant be seen because they are internal struggles. It seems that to have the best user experience is to have smoothest and simplest pathway towards the user’s goal. However, I have came to realise how skewed this idea can be. Speaking from personal experience, sometimes, because an experience is so seamless, the fact that there is almost no “thinking” needed, I have managed to sign up for brands newsletter that I have no recollection off or auto check boxes has got me signing up for trials that I am not keen on. While reducing the work overload would help with the user interaction, however, going a further step to enriching the experience would be to balance the manipulative patterns. Afterall, if I have to take the extra steps to be aware of these dark methods used against me then it back fires the initial idea of minimising work.
Another interesting pointer shared is Framework definition under Process. It mentions that Persona and scenario are the primary drivers of basic framework. It is broken down to interaction framework, visual framework and industrial design framework. Being an interaction designer, sometimes I struggle with idea of “how functionality is grouped and how the personas will accomplish the most critical tasks”. I am starting to feel that there is a streamlining of design styles and everything are starting to look similar. EG old person naturally means bigger fonts, teens means more new technology to engage, kids means nothing sharp, intuitive movements. Hence, I think if I were to follow this scheme of using personas into my FYP, the personas need to be distinctive, unique individual, that should not be able to be blurred together with everyone else. Completely fictional stories of imaginary people based on little or no research bring no value for the design process and in fact, can in turn back fire. Poorly constructed personas is very much linked to the credibility of this technique.
I really enjoyed this quote: Any good method is a living thing that continues to evolve and grow. Indeed, while there are many recommendations, and structures around, I think human behaviours is consistently evolving and what this means for designs is to not just blindly follow trends or get stuck in frameworks, but to consistently be innovative that are targeted and well-researched for its user.