Fw: [Sigia-l] Timeline

[Scott Paterson]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Paterson" <somebody at sgp-7.net>
To: "paula.thornton" <paula.thornton at prodigy.net>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Timeline


> See comments below...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "paula.thornton" <paula.thornton at prodigy.net>
> > Shocked? I am, indeed. The rebuttals that have been exchanged have very
> > distinct hints of skill shortages that I believe to be critical for
> serving
> > successfully as a professional in this space.
> >
> > The comments seem to be very 'seated' in 'face-value' analysis. Indeed,
> this
> > is a detrimental practice short-coming of many IAs I have worked with in
> the
> > past (many of them too short-sighted to become involved in discussions
> such
> > as these to hone their skills and broaden their perspectives).
>
> sgp: Speaking of saving time, please cut to the chase Paula. For you, it
> seems the bottom line is useability. ;)
>
> > I already responded to Scott offline, pointing out that he missed my
> intent
> > to offer the History Channel example based on the value of the
> 'components',
> > complete with admission that there was plenty of room to improve the
> visual
> > design.
>
> sgp: I understood your comments about the design. That is not my critique.
I
> don't think I missed your point at all. My critique lies in the design of
> the interaction of that example. It led me away from the navigation which
> itself was confusing. So am I to understand 'components' for you means
> content? If not, I am still unclear about the value of this example.
>
> > I was more shocked by Eric's (a seasoned, respected professional)
> response:
> > Unfortunately, many museums use the timeline as a convenient collection
of
> > dated shoeboxes in which they can throw whatever content they happen to
> have
> > lying around. The History Channel timeline struck me as one of these.
> >
> > Hardly. Let's talk about basic IA goals for the people we are entrusted
to
> > defend the rights and needs of: the recipients. One primary goal is to
> help
> > the visitor achieve their goal with the lowest 'cost'. The most
> predominant
> > 'cost' from an economic perspective in this equation is time. As I
pointed
> > out to Scott, most of the flash examples never completed loading in less
> > than 5 minutes on my machine...so without addressing the first goal,
> > 'glitzy' becomes a throw-away...it has no value to the recipient.
>
> sgp: I must beg to differ that the primary goal is for the visitor to
> achieve their goal with the lowest 'cost'. This is not a one size fits all
> solution, in my opinion. I think we need to be clear about the goals that
> the client has for the project first. An example. There have been numerous
> popular websites for generating audiences prior to the release of films.
The
> sites are more governed by a desire for meandering and surrendipity(Visual
> Thesaurus is a classic example) than immediate content delivery. I am
> thinking of sites for Requiem for a Dream, Donny Darko, etc. It is more
> important for the client to express mood than useability. Am I being
clear?
> It seems to me that this desire for reducing time is geared towards
mission
> critical sites, for example, where I agree it is a primary goal. I also
> wonder if there isn't an assumption at play here favoring the page
metaphor
> for websites rather than information environments or other models.
>
> I am wondering what kind of machine/connection you're running that it
takes
> more than 5 minutes to download these sites? I also want to address that I
> agree with you that too long a waiting period without first hooking the
user
> is a problem. Most successful sites, in my opinion, create an engaging
> pre-loader that either instructs you about the interface or some other
> distracting information while you wait - for java this is a rare find but
> for flash it is becoming more common. So it is important to evaluate if
the
> project needs to be of such a size that it requires downloading and if it
> does, then design an engaging experience around that constraint. Don't
just
> dispense of it, out of hand.
>
> I am going to retract the EMP as a good timeline example. There has been
too
> much contextual mis-understanding and back and forth for me to keep
> defending it - and I am not getting my work/teaching done. After
discussing
> it with Eric off-list we determined that the timeline is a secondary
element
> to the collection. It is primarily an archive that happens to have a
feature
> that orders content chronologically. Secondly, the online version of EMP
> suffers because it was designed for a kiosk with a high-powered computer
and
> a large screen - then within a very short client-defined time period
ported
> online. At the kiosk there is no delay to initialize. There is an
> introduction highlighting the basic features and when you log in, it takes
> you directly to your bookmarks - we tested in extensively and at the time
of
> launch had few complaints. BTW, the bookmarks are supplemental information
> to the information displayed with each object in the museum exhibit. So
> enough beating up on that example.
>
> > The Wrigley's example was one of the few exceptions to this (quick load,
> > clear delivery - interaction). I stumbled on the History Channel example
> > because I was in search of another example former colleagues had done
> which
> > was close to the Wrigley's example. The 'value' of the History Channel
has
> > many angles of exemplification:
> > + there are plenty of situations where 'low-tech' is the only option
> > available to the solution...this was a good example to address just such
a
> > situation (set of requirements).
> > + it reduced the cost of 'find' to the recipient. An entire year was
> > represented in 'snippets' of teasers, as opposed to the Wrigley's
solution
> > which offered single-threaded content. Again, another option.
>
> sgp: I agree that these are achieved in this example. I am a big supporter
> of low-tech. My students at Parsons know I am a tough customer when it
comes
> to Flash. So please don't peg me as pro-glitzy. I only wish you had
> presented this list upon first providing the example.
>
> > The readers of this list should work harder to understand the
distinctions
> > between learning from 'core concepts' and being expected to be spoon-fed
> > complete answers. The most truly innovative practitioners, find critical
> > 'grains of sand' that they then use to improve on and turn into pearls.
>
> sgp: I think I might agree with you. But I don't trust that your
definition
> of 'core concepts' is broad enough to encompass the types of work I
> produce(non-profit, design, art, and commercial clients), teach or use. To
> paraphrase, are you basically saying, "don't try to reinvent the wheel?"
>
> > And as my final 'get a clue' lecture, come back at me with your own
> > statistics, but from what I've seen, the need to address 'entertainment'
> > value as a primary goal for interaction design is truly 'desired' by the
> > visitors in less than 5% of the instances. Are you telling me that like
> the
> > training provided by Western Medicine, that you really want to hone your
> > skills to address less than 5% of the needs of those you want to serve?
> It
> > is argued that doctors are specifically 'honed' to address 'emergency'
> > situations...high trauma and physical damage...and are quite inept at
> > addressing cross-systemic failures...for which most of our medical
> distress
> > can be accounted.
>
> sgp: Wow!! For me statistics shouldn't be my criteria for design, esp.
when
> it comes to subjective criteria. Not everything can be boiled down to
> quantitative measurement. I recall there has already been a rather long
> debate about how and when to use such supporting data and I don't want to
> open that can of worms again here.
>
> > There is high demand for our group of practitioners to be uniquely adept
> at
> > providing 'out of the box' options for consideration. Apparently, those
> who
> > have those skills should highlight them more intensely on their resumes,
> > because it looks like the competition is thin...
>
> sgp: Well, if that's a swipe at me, then I'll gladly take it on the chin
> because it is precisely this kind of homogenizing 'out of the box'
> fallacy(even the 'out of the box' providers don't believe it) outlook that
> brings us Wal-Mart, The Gap, and McDonalds.
>
> > Paula Thornton
> > Interaction Design Strategist
>
> sgp: Paula, I mean no disrespect and enjoy this exchange with you as it
only
> brings out the best of discourse in the group. My last question for you is
> what does it mean to be a Interaction Design Strategist? How is it
different
> than being an Interaction Designer? Do you plan and others implement? Just
> curious. Titles can be so misleading or uninformative. Best regards, [sgp]
>
>
>