3 ms·

Pretty bold claim that the tired design described (in such a funny way) in the article is some kind of über design and all subsequent designs will be incrementa

by gdubs 13y ago

Pretty bold claim that the tired design described (in such a funny way) in the article is some kind of über design and all subsequent designs will be incremental tweaks on it... Isn't it a little like saying everything should be written in Java because it's safe and who can afford to take risks? Nothing ventured, nothing gained I'd say. Taking a bit of risk on marketing can help differentiate. Isn't it also a risk to go with what's common, blending in with the pack?

derefr 13y ago
I think the claim is something more like: • UX is good when it works in tandem with human cognition and psychology. • HCI science--the study of human cognition and psychology, as it relates to doing UX--can point us toward designs that are objectively better in their human usability. • A design radical-enough to not look or work like current UX--a novel "UX paradigm"--would, at this point, necessarily be one that ignores what we currently know about HCI. It would therefore, probably, be horrible. (Individual designs from such a novel paradigm could be surprisingly okay, if they manage to find some other local maximum in UX-space--but since the paradigm goes against the grain of human intuition, it wouldn't generate any globally optimal designs.)