Spilled Ink

veilleinfo:

“When I meet with people and talk about our work, I get asked a lot what technology we use to create interactive and dynamic data visualizations. At Interactive Things, we have a set of preferred libraries, applications and services that we use regularly in our work. We will select the most fitting tool for the job depending on the requirements of the project. Sometimes a really simple tool is all you need to create something meaningful. On other occasions, a more multifaceted repertoire is needed. But how does one choose the right thing to use? An endless list of every tool available, does not answer that question and a recommendation from a friend is oftentimes more valuable.”

agentfin:

Oh no! You have to create a mobile app! Time to invest in some really serious prototpying tools.

You’ll obviously need something with shiny buttons. Something that really captures the reflections on the screen… animation will be important too, right?

Wrong.

Go out and buy some of these:

dianaapan:

1. Make buttons look like buttons.
2. Put buttons where users can find them.
3. Make the most important button look like it’s the most important one.
4. Put buttons in a sensible order.
5. Label buttons with what they do.
6. If users don’t want to do something, don’t have a button for it.
7. Make it harder to find destructive buttons.

Nothing particularly revolutionary there, right?

uxrules:

1. Interfaces exist to enable interaction
2. Clarity is job #1
3. Conserve attention at all costs
4. Keep users in control
5. Direct manipulation is best
6. One primary action per screen
7. Keep secondary actions secondary
8. Provide a natural next step
9. Appearance follows behavior (aka form follows function)
10. …

While researching Personas for the new website I’m building, I came across a website that detailed different reasoning techniques for the benefit of creative problem solving. The author breaks it down into three: Inductive, Deductive and Adductive:

As the development process requires a high degree of reliability and certainty, thought processes that involve inductive and deductive reasoning are most appropriate. Inductive reasoning determines rules by moving from specifics to generalities. For example, if every time we touch ice it is cold, we can then make a rule that all ice is cold. Deductive reasoning determines conclusions by moving from generalities to specifics. For example, if we know that all ice is cold and we are told that an object is made of ice, we conclude that the object will be cold. Both of these types of reasoning work hand-in—hand, and can be proven or disproven by observing or experiencing additional examples. In contrast, the innovation process requires the creation of highly plausible hypotheses and solutions that are not readily observed or experienced - at least not in the current context. The thought processes most applicable in these circumstances are abductive and adductive reasoning. These types of reasoning require that intuition and creativity are applied to observed and experienced facts. Abductive reasoning determines plausible hypotheses. For example, abductive reasoning would be used to determine hypotheses for why ice would be cold. Further investigation beyond external observation would be required to prove or disprove each hypothesis proposed. Adductive reasoning determines plausible solutions. For example, depending upon why ice is cold, we may develop new solutions for how to make ice. Each solution would need to be tested through experimentation. Both of these types of reasoning also work hand-in-hand. We can see how different types of reasoning are applicable in different situations. We can also see how different types of reasoning are important in any functional discipline in an organization. Both innovation and development groups need multidisciplinary teams. When selecting people to work in either group, it’s much more important to assess how they approach identifying and solving problems than which discipline they come from.