4 ms·
To some extent you are right, but our biological systems are also highly adaptable to new interfaces - e.g. keyboards, home appliances, cars. Interaction design
by CognitiveLens 15y ago
To some extent you are right, but our biological systems are also highly adaptable to new interfaces - e.g. keyboards, home appliances, cars. Interaction design does need to support user perception of how to interact with a device/system, but these affordances can be combined and developed into highly original and useful interactive applications.
I agree with others that Planetary does not address these design challenges effectively, but it's important to recognize the adaptability of our sensory systems to fundamentally 'new' ways of interacting with the world.
- markkat 15y ago>but it's important to recognize the adaptability of our sensory systems to fundamentally 'new' ways of interacting with the world. I'd say in most cases, good design asks us to adapt less, rather than more. Keyboards have finger-sized keys, arranged in a heuristic manner informed by linguistics. The keyboard minimizes effort between the brain and text. I agree that Planetary is not effective, and here's why: Planetary arrangements don't map onto music collections naturally, and they do little to inform the organization. Planetary asks us to learn more, to do less. A better music collection interface IMO, would be one where dimensions were informed by music and song information, not planetary physics.