Comments on: UIEtips Article: Visible Narratives: Understanding Visual Organization http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2006/10/31/uietips-article-visible-narratives-understanding-visual-organization/ UIE\'s latest insights on the world of design Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:20:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Todd O'Neill http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2006/10/31/uietips-article-visible-narratives-understanding-visual-organization/#comment-32579 Todd O'Neill Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:30:08 +0000 http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/?p=372#comment-32579 I think the quote from Stanford (''We find that people quickly evaluate a site by visual design alone.'' -- Stanford Guidelines for Web Credibility, 2002") needs to be interpreted correctly. DISCLAIMER: I have not read their study. I come to the web discipline from the film and video discipline. In that world we refer to what Stanford is referring to as "production value." Think about channel surfing on cable. You hit the local public access channel then click again and hit one of the big networks. Chances are you won't click back to the public access channel because the production values (the program look and feel) aren't as good, therefore the programming has less credibility. Did I miss Luke's reference to this effect? Only after your site's "production value" captures an audience can you expose them to your message, credible or not. Int eh web world we so often discuss the "micro" design of web content that we often miss the "macro" design. I think the perceived difference between film/video and the web is that the former is a thought of as "broadcast" and the latter as "narrow-cast." All web content/presentation/functionality is "broadcast" due the ubiquitous and border crossing nature of the Internet. No matter what, if it ain't "ready for prime time" it ain't ready, no matter how much thought went into the micro design. I think the quote from Stanford (”We find that people quickly evaluate a site by visual design alone.” — Stanford Guidelines for Web Credibility, 2002″) needs to be interpreted correctly.
DISCLAIMER: I have not read their study.
I come to the web discipline from the film and video discipline. In that world we refer to what Stanford is referring to as “production value.”
Think about channel surfing on cable. You hit the local public access channel then click again and hit one of the big networks. Chances are you won’t click back to the public access channel because the production values (the program look and feel) aren’t as good, therefore the programming has less credibility.
Did I miss Luke’s reference to this effect? Only after your site’s “production value” captures an audience can you expose them to your message, credible or not.
Int eh web world we so often discuss the “micro” design of web content that we often miss the “macro” design. I think the perceived difference between film/video and the web is that the former is a thought of as “broadcast” and the latter as “narrow-cast.”
All web content/presentation/functionality is “broadcast” due the ubiquitous and border crossing nature of the Internet. No matter what, if it ain’t “ready for prime time” it ain’t ready, no matter how much thought went into the micro design.

]]> By: Sleep2death.blog(); » 如何组织视觉内容（Understanding Visual Organization 翻译） http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2006/10/31/uietips-article-visible-narratives-understanding-visual-organization/#comment-32532 Sleep2death.blog(); » 如何组织视觉内容（Understanding Visual Organization 翻译） Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:56:20 +0000 http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/?p=372#comment-32532 [...] UIEtips Article: Visible Narratives: Understanding Visual Organization” href=”http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2006/10/31/uietips-article-visible-narratives-understanding-visual-organization/” rel=”bookmark”> Understanding Visual Organization [...] [...] UIEtips Article: Visible Narratives: Understanding Visual Organization” href=”http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2006/10/31/uietips-article-visible-narratives-understanding-visual-organization/” rel=”bookmark”> Understanding Visual Organization [...]

]]> By: Chris Hawkins http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2006/10/31/uietips-article-visible-narratives-understanding-visual-organization/#comment-32468 Chris Hawkins Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:24:29 +0000 http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/?p=372#comment-32468 Oy! As I read this, I am reminded how so often Visual Design means something different to everyone, even within UE circles. Conversations get pretty muddy when using this overloaded phrase. This creates problems, especially in promoting the UE process, design and the skills sets required. It's a pet peeve, and one of the most aggravating growing pains as a UE discipline we have right now. It helps, in part, to perpetuate the lipstick-on-the- pig mentality. Ok, now that I've ranted - the deal is that any good UE person knows there are TWO VERY DIFFERENT components to Visual Design. And we need words around this to discuss it intelligently. Component 1 - Layout, alignment and use of color or shape to guide or inform users. This is about whether a button is green or yellow, or if information is aligned for easier scanning, or if a button is placed where a user will find it. It's all about supporting the user interaction. THIS is VERY different than Component 2 - Aesthetics - how colors compliment each other and how pretty the buttons are. I suggest we cut to the chase in our discussions around Visual Design, and immediately define the context, before talking any further. I propose we start using these words/definitions based around these aspects: 1) (Visual) Layout and Form, "user experience as function" and 2) (Visual) Look and Feel "Aesthetics" - beauty. #1, Layout and Form is part of supporting the interaction design and subordinate to #2, prettying it up. Of course, there is conflict and overlap at times, but bottom line "Form follows function." Doesn't mean you should ignore aesthetics - I believe it is VERY important - but lets' keep it in context, shall we? Without this granularity, we muddy things up, for example, in delegating proper resources. Layout & form decisions differ from aesthetic decisions. ANd interaction/workflow specialists are not always great at Layout & form. Graphic artists (primarily aestheticians) often do not understand how the presentation - layout, form, button placement - must work IN CONJUNCTION with a dynamically changing, often task-based situation - as they work with static screens and often do not have user experience training. My two cents, Chris Hawkins chris@usermatters.com designer :: manager :: rabble rouser Oy! As I read this, I am reminded how so often Visual Design means something different to everyone, even within UE circles. Conversations get pretty muddy when using this overloaded phrase. This creates problems, especially in promoting the UE process, design and the skills sets required. It’s a pet peeve, and one of the most aggravating growing pains as a UE discipline we have right now. It helps, in part, to perpetuate the lipstick-on-the- pig mentality.

Ok, now that I’ve ranted - the deal is that any good UE person knows there are TWO VERY DIFFERENT components to Visual Design. And we need words around this to discuss it intelligently.

Component 1 - Layout, alignment and use of color or shape to guide or inform users. This is about whether a button is green or yellow, or if information is aligned for easier scanning, or if a button is placed where a user will find it. It’s all about supporting the user interaction. THIS is VERY different than

Component 2 - Aesthetics - how colors compliment each other and how pretty the buttons are.

I suggest we cut to the chase in our discussions around Visual Design, and immediately define the context, before talking any further. I propose we start using these words/definitions based around these aspects:

1) (Visual) Layout and Form, “user experience as function” and
2) (Visual) Look and Feel “Aesthetics” - beauty.

#1, Layout and Form is part of supporting the interaction design and subordinate to #2, prettying it up. Of course, there is conflict and overlap at times, but bottom line “Form follows function.” Doesn’t mean you should ignore aesthetics - I believe it is VERY important - but lets’ keep it in context, shall we?

Without this granularity, we muddy things up, for example, in delegating proper resources. Layout & form decisions differ from aesthetic decisions. ANd interaction/workflow specialists are not always great at Layout & form. Graphic artists (primarily aestheticians) often do not understand how the presentation - layout, form, button placement - must work IN CONJUNCTION with a dynamically changing, often task-based situation - as they work with static screens and often do not have user experience training.

My two cents,
Chris Hawkins
chris@usermatters.com
designer :: manager :: rabble rouser

]]>