Hi Keith
Well, despite my Ubuntu familiarity and preference for Windows systems
being ignored, and having overcome my distaste for weak brothel jokes (why
oh why oh why, given the number of women on the list?), can I again point
out the underlying rhetoric of efficiency at work here.
As Shneiderman<http://faculty.washington.edu/jtenenbg/courses/360/f04/sessions/schneidermanGoldenRules.html>puts
it, there are 8 "golden rules" of HCI:
1. Strive for consistency.
2. Enable frequent users to use shortcuts.
3. Offer informative feedback.
4. Design dialog to yield closure.
5. Offer simple error handling.
6. Permit easy reversal of actions.
7. Support internal locus of control.
8. Reduce short-term memory load.
Like GOMS, as Don might note, these rules evidence a rhetorical focus on
the part of their formulators that assumes the primary importance of time
based efficiency in task handling. Go through the HCI lit, you'll see this
rhetoric time and again. And in many cases, for a valid reason - the task
demands it.
But, as most game developers know (even if not as a conscious contrast to
Shneiderman), each of these rules can be broken for creative and
constructive effect in terms of creating engaging player experiences.
We play games on an iPad<http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/07/distimo-ipad-stats/>,
btw, and it's a primary reason for buying one for many people.
This is my overall point - that perhaps those buying the product don't
subscribe to your notions of efficiency, nor are all notions of efficiency
based on a product having everything every other product might possibly
have. And what, exactly, is wrong with that?
No one is stopping you using your Android tablet for efficient tasks if you
choose. I'd probably still hit the desktop myself. But my laptop is
gathering dust now, as my iPad serves as a game test platform and a range
of other things as well that it used to do. Does that mean laptops suck?
As a rhetoric, efficiency has no claim to dominance in structuring our
approach to design problems or understanding design cultures, other than as
a researcher's prejudice and possibly indicating a unconscious tendency to
Taylorism.
Might I also point out the incongruity of at once claiming that iPad
ownership is problematic as it turns on spurious social identity
construction, while simultaneously actively identifying as a thinking
person through your choice of device?
I will address the vague technical issues you raise separately.
Cheers,
Adam
--
Adam Parker
Campus Academic Coordinator
Qantm Melbourne
Qantm College Melbourne Campus
235 Normanby Rd
South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia
+61 (0) 3 8632 3400 | Phone
+61 (0) 3 8632 3401 | Fax
**** 2011 MCV Pacific Awards: **Tertiary Games Educational Institution of
the Year ***
*
www.sae.edu | Web
www.qantm.com.au | Web
www.saeshortcourses.com | Web
SAE National Provider Code: 0273. SAE CRICOS Provider Codes: NSW 00312F.
SAE Institute Pty Ltd, ABN: 21 093 057 973
This email (including all attachments) is confidential and may be subject
to legal privilege and/or copyright. The information contained within this
email (including all attachments) should only be viewed if you are the
intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete this email from your system along with
any copies that have been made. Any unauthorised use, which includes
saving, printing, copying, disseminating or forwarding is prohibited and
may result in breach of confidentiality, privilege or copyright. If you
wish to unsubscribe or choose not to receive further commercial electronic
messages from SAE Institute or any grouped/associated entities please send
an email this address with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
|