 |
 |
Dear Gunnar, Yes, you are right, I imagined that David was implying that he was using a different approach to a similar problem. How did I image that? I followed the rules of implication that are common in my many discussions with other academics. Do I have justification for doing this? I am off my Beta-blockers today so I am working twice as fast? The benefit that one might expect from rule systems (I here imply the unstated comparison = rules compared to intution) is that people can learn and get better at operations over time - they can become experts and achieve vastly superior results. The stupidity of Apple design making claims to intuition is caught up in this differentiation. When Windows 8 came out, there were many YouTube videos point out how Grandma couldnąt open the operating system because she didnąt know how to slide the screen up. Ha Ha the Mac people said, itąs not intuitive. Well Ha Ha Mac people, the stupid iPod needs all kinds of stupid non-intuitive attention that could be done in vastly superior ways if they bothered to follow existing understandings (rules) and added slight modifications - like hey, maybe there is an escape key - or even perhaps, the iPad Pro keyboard (which is the ugliest piece of raincoat plastic) might be allowed to function as a full-on keyboard? In visual communication that requires high levels of readability and comprehension (90% of people understand 90% of the message) it would seem better to be explicit in forming rules rather than groovy in implying stumbling across press the home button twice to get to your iPad because we have now copied Android but we donąt want to look like boring Android users because they arenąt intuitive and anyway, who needs a back button? So, there is a fundamental tension in the literature, related to this field, in terms of rules-based design (you must become literate in some ways) and affordance-based design (you just know what to do because itąs blatantly obvious). keith On 17/11/16, 12:25 pm, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design on behalf of Gunnar Swanson" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>On Nov 16, 2016, at 8:19 PM, Keith Russell >><[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>David is pointing out that designed affordances can be understood through >>rule systems. > >David didnąt say designed affordances can be understood through rule >systems. He said "In our own work, we have found it much more useful to >think in terms of rules." So how or why is it more useful (and to whom)? > > >Gunnar ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------