3 ms·
We have methods to test UI's to validate or invalidate them, we do not have a way to create new UI's from testing. HCI research provides a good grounding for de
by tsunamifury 14y ago
We have methods to test UI's to validate or invalidate them, we do not have a way to create new UI's from testing. HCI research provides a good grounding for design architecture options, but it does not dictate an actual design for you.
This is a very important distinction most test-only UX designers miss.
For example: If you test a skeuomorphic design versus a flat design, the testing will only tell you which of these interpretations of each design philosophy works best. However, maybe a better, more inspired, skeuomorphic design would possible perform better than flat if given a a different interpretation.
tl;dr -- testing only shows you which implementation works better in a set, not the best implementation possible.
- ThomPete 14y agoAnd even worse only show you which implementation works in the context its being showed. I.e. a lot of people UX people test was tested in pseudo environments. http://000fff.org/getting-to-the-customer-why-everything-you-think-about-user-centred-design-is-wrong/ http://000fff.org/getting-to-the-customer-why-everything-you... Many UX experts laughed when this was written in 2010. But it is now the default IMO. Testing has to be done in its actual environment to provide really useful feedback or be something completely (like a new way of interacting with your computer) new in order to be tested outside its final environment. Testing no-ui is even harder since you have to build a "persona" before you can test the results.