_I agree with his final stance that basically any good design can be made usable in some way or another. It is not a wasted effort to create ideas even if not all of them are winners.
_He mentioned that many designers view designing for people with and without disabilities is seen as the Vonnegut story, or handicapping everyone for equality. I would disagree with this. As a designer myself and knowing many desiners in my field, I think that designing for people from all backgrounds- some with disabilities and some without- is always the first step and is always in mind. It is not an inconvenienve or hindrance to the design process but a challenge in good design and innovation.
_The idea of a "resovoir of goodwill" was new to me but I think it will be very helpful going forward. It isn't just important to make things that function like they should and are easy to find but are also up to date and guess what the user will want to see before they go looking for it.
_I have learned that user testing is a must when it comes to user experience. I never thought much about the stages of when it is best to get user's opinions. It does make sense that its better to get a single person to help early on in the process rather than waiting until the least minute and getting lots of opinions on the look and feel rather than the actual interface of the piece.
_He talked about how a major factor of why users don't understand an interface could be because "the words they're looking for aren't there". I understand why this would be a major problem but I also think that there is no innovation unless you introduce something new to the user and train them how to use it. If you always design so literally, you will never make anything that's new and exciting.
_The idea of "Triage" or deciding which problems need to be fixed after testing was new to me. It is liberating to know that even if a user or two felt that something wasn't what they would like, you don't need to change it.
_I agreed with the idea that when it comes to Home pages "there's always just one... more... thing". In creating user platforms I am consistanly surprised by all of the things that you forget to include until you need them.
_I'm not super sure that the user would need both a search or browse option every single time. I think that sometimes one or the other is better rather than giving the user more options than necessary.
_It was a new thought to me that I should ask the same users I tested the app with in its early stages to test it again and see if they find things easier and if their notes have helped the opperation of the interface.
_I liked Krug's main idea of feeding the user in web design all the information they need in such a way that they don't have to think. When designed well, navigation should be second nature. It should feel organic and move from one stage of the process to the next.
_I was a bit confused when he introduced self-evident design. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of self-evident or self-explanatory design I just wonder if there is a way to find out how much thought is too much to expect from your users.
_It was a new idea to me that creating ideas for the web is not a science. I was always intimidated by the thought of predicting the next thing in the Web but it was comforting to know that my guess was as good as his.
_I liked the idea of good startups coming from a place that you are already very familiar with. By choosing from something that you already understand you are the first round of user testing in what problems are there and a big enough deal for you to spend time solving them.
_Paul Graham's ideas were all pretty easy to get behind the only thing that I might struggle agreeing with him on is when he starts to describe the difference between a niche idea and startup gold. I would have said that if you are looking into areas where you yourself see problems, wouldn’t the problems you personally need solved and problems others face be the same thing?
_I have never thought of creating my own startup so the idea of creating something that people feel they absolutely need that doesn't already exist was foregin to me. It makes sense then, to focus on creating something that is a necessity rather than just something that sounds cool or could be helpful in theory.
_I learned abou the 'F' pattern a few years back and since then I have tried to utilize it but mostly in print design. I never really thought about using it in web design but it would be the perfect interface for attention grabbing.
_There really wasn't much that Wang said that I didn't get on board with. Mostly because the concepts he talked about were not familiar to me so I haven't had any conflicting experience.
_My default has never been to think in web design. The idea of user experience though I do somewhat understand since I have been on the recieving end as a consumer. It is interesting to think about how I navigate the web so that I can tailor the things I produce to better assist the average user.
_This video convinced me that in almost every creative field, remixes are unavoidable and that just becuase something is a variation of what has been done, doesn't make it any less successful. Some of my favorite books and movies are remixes of remixes of remixes.
_The video also highlights that some remixes can come a bit too close to the original and I think that personally, I am a bit more critical at what is a remix and what is plagarism.
_I have seen this video a few times so I wouldn't say anything was new but it is always a good one to rewatch as a reminder that everything you make doesn't have to come from a vacuum. And its reassuring to know that basically nothing does.
_I completely agree with Nicole Fenton's statement that "If we want design to communicate, we need to communicate in the design process." In my own work I think that this is often the core of the problem when I hit snags in design.
_There was little that I diagreed with Fenton in the article. THe only thing I could say is that fining a "shared language" as she suggests gets all the more complex when you have to use imagery. I struggle with finding the balance between creating something I like and something that others will understand.
_One new idea Fenton introduced was the cooperation between writers and designers. In my experience I haven't worked with writers much at all and much of the content I have used has been either creted by myself or reused from public access. The idea of two different creative entities functioning together is interesting and I can see how it could get difficult when it comes to creative vision.
_I connected with the idea about how to convey meaning to the public through imagery or symbolism. Approaching problems in communication is not always this extreme but it is always significant factor in any design.
_This problem I think was very hyper specific and I doubt that I will ever be asked or find the need to design for a public so far in the future but it was interesting to hear the design approach.
_The concept of designing for a group of people that won't be born for thousands of years. Its hard enough to design for people today how in the world could these designers could even begin to tackle this problem is incredible.
_I agree with Erika Hall's finding that when you assume you know everything, you jump to answer rather than listening and this results in you oftenbeing wrong.
_I don't know how much I agree with her statement that you hae to understand the whole world that you are not in control of. I think that I should know a lot about the world but the knowledge sould come from people in the world and their wishes and needs.
_I liked her point that "assumptions are giant risks for whatever you are trying to design". I've never thought about the fact that by thinking that other people are going to think the exact same way as me. No one thinks the exact same so I have to take into account the fact that everyone has a different track mind and I have to design for them as well.
_I have heard it before and often that writing a professional email is a significant bit of being successful in the adult world. I agree that in the technological age first impressions are still as important as they have ever been. The difference now, is that these first impressions often come from online portfolios, resumes, and emails. My only wish was that after painstakingly professional and eloquent email to professors and contacts alike I would recieve one that illustrates the same effort but that usually isn't the case.
_I definitely can't fully get on board when Mike Monteiro states so confidently that "design education is broken". There are defintely sme things that I think could have been done better or differently in my time here in design school. But to say that the system as a whole is utterly broken is pessimistic rather than realistic.
_I have never given much thought to the fact that just because I am in a creative feild does not mean that the general aspects of business as a facet of the serice industry will not apply to me. I still need to understand how to invoice and get paid and handle clients professionally. All of which I have literally no idea how to do yet.
_I like the way that Abby Covert recommended attacking messes. She suggested changing the ways in which we deal with them. Sorting them differently and viewing them in different ways for different situations.
_I think that when it comes to simplification the rule is that less is more. In some instances though, more can be more. Idon't think that it is always necessary to oversimplify just for simplicity's sake.
_I liked Covert's term information architecture and her explanation of all those context clues that we can utilize in order to make sense of what we are seeing. She uses this information to spot messes and begin creative problem solving which I found very applicable to the design process.
_Frank Chimero says it right when he says that one should design with a specific medium in mind. By adopting the strengths and weaknesses of your medium, you are able to push boundaries while still making something fitting and functional. Print design and web design should not be made in the same way because they both have different preconceived understanding.
_Chimero makes the case that works like the Mona Lisa are made for print and David Hockney's photo collages are meant for screens. I would argue that Hockney creates more in the realmof vision and time rather than navigation and virtual movement like web does.
_I never thought about the fact that just because you can in web design, doesn't mean you should. A few websites came to mind immedietly when Chimero brought up the concept of going too far in web design. When they leave behind the goal of ease and understanding and focus on moving elements and innovation, they can lose the whole point of websites being used. If I, as the user, can't figure out how to navigate the site through all of the bells and whistles what is the point? A website that adds constant unnecessary feautures and tries to push the envelope loses its purpose and becomes bogged down with user confusion.
_Wilson Miner claims that "the tools we use shape who we are" and I agree with this. I feel that the tools we make, in turn make us who we are. They alter our habits, our behavior, and our reflexes. This is shown everywhere from how we interact with a magazine article versus how we handle an ipad article. Both shape us and change the way we enter into technology that presents already understood media.
_I dont agree with Miner's opinion that because we live in a screen world we should design for screens first. I think there is a lot to be said for design that is meant to be tactile. Magazines, books, and posters are all still effective mediums for mass communication; even in a screen world.
_I never thought about the way that screens appear not just in design but in every facet of my day. From the moment I wake up to turn off my alarm to the moment I set it and head to bed, I personally interact with screens. What better way to reach an audience than through a medium that they use just as constantly as I do?