Journal Entry 12: Paul R. Bruski Lecture

Paul R. Bruski gave the final presentation of the Universal Design Symposium. This presentation was titled Info Design in Context. Information design is the branch of graphic design that deals with preparing information so people can use it easily and effectively. The basic premise of this was, instead of complicating a piece of information design, simplify it and allow the information to speak for itself. He presented a three-layer model for design in context.

1) Look (the formal aspects)

2) Context (material)

3) Task structure

He gave a number of examples during his presentation. One of them was Charles Joseph Minard’s 1861 diagram of Napoleon’s March. He did not go in depth about this but I thought it was one of the most interesting. Also it was one of the early examples of info design. Although the details of this diagram are hard to understand, the outcome of the march is very apparent.

Another example he touched on was the information design of Edward Tufte. He showed the classic O-ring failure diagram that stemmed from the Challenger tragedy. This seems to be one of the best examples of how not to display information graphics. Everything is so convoluted and the 20+ pictures of rockets on the diagram are not pertinent to the diagram. These two examples definitely represent his ideas on information design and context, and the three layer the three layer model. Unfortunately in the latter case, the designer (probably an engineer with no design background) did not take these ideas into consideration.

Another thing he talked was the emotional response to design, and how this can help or people them from gathering the information the design is presenting. The example used for this was medical decision aid cards for diabetes. It was amazing how much research they did. The emotional response these cards elicited were also pretty amazing. An object like a medical decision aid does not seem like it would elicit any kind of emotional response. But depending on how the card is designed, people will react differently to it. The most obvious and sensible example of this was the card that was almost entirely text, if I remember right; it was black and white, whereas most of the cards had color. This card was most often labeled as “scary.” I don’t know if scary is the right word, but I can see how something like that could be construed as threatening. Women and men’s reactions were also quite different to each card. That presents a bit of a problem when designing a product that will be used equally by both sexes.

Journal Entry 12: Debra Satterfield Lecture

Debra Satterfield’s presentation was about Design for Behavioral Change and Social Inclusion. First she talked about design as a form of communication. She said that design provides an interface that helps people access information. She said that design lets people interact with information and gives them the opportunity to use it. The next thing she talked about was what design is in the real world. She gave a list that talked about how design is info, experiences, artifacts, communities, structures, and real or virtual spaces that enforce our sense of community. She went on to say that design physically and emotionally supports people, and empowers them to extend their capabilities. Next she gave a definition for Design for Behavioral Change, which is designs that model or direct changes in people’s behavior. One of her other main points was Design for Social Inclusion, these are designs that break down social barriers.

One of her examples was a video game that taught children with autism how to use basic sign language. I thought this was a very good example of her two main points. This product would help direct changes in people’s behavior, not only in the autistic children, but also in children without autism. This product definitely fit the definition of design for social inclusion. Since it could be used by both autistic and non-autistic, it broke down the social barriers.

Another example she gave was a little GPS/phone device for autistic children. The way she presented the device, it definitely fit the definition of design for social inclusion. She showed that since autistic children may not be able to have the same fancy cell phones as their friends, this device would give them a cool device of their own. It also fit the definition of design for behavioral change. It could help change the behavior of the autistic children and their friends. It would give the autistic children new opportunities, and their friends would look at the device and not look down on them because they don’t have a fancy cell phone. I didn’t think this example was the best idea. I do believe that autistic children should be more empowered, but letting them wander around their neighborhoods unattended seems like it could lead so some problems.

The third example she gave was a website that dealt with IBS and other related problems such as Crohns and Colitis. This site also fit the definitions of her two principles. It helps direct or model positive changes in people’s behavior. It gives people with bowel disorders a positive outlook and hope for change, while educating their friends and relatives about what they are going through. It also helps to break down social barriers. This site educates people about these different conditions and helps them find solutions which will eventually break down the social barriers they face.

Journal Entry 11: Robert Hoekman Jr. Lecture

When I first heard that this presentation was going to be about web apps, I must admit I was a little worried. Design involving the web is definitely not my favorite and I thought I might feel the same about the lecture as I do about web design. I was definitely wrong, Robert Hoeckman Jr. actually made web design seem fun, and he had a lot of good ideas about universal design. The main portion of his presentation was about the Essential Elements of Web App Design, which I will list here.

1. Understand users, then ignore them

Listen to what the consumer says with a grain of salt. Figure out what they actually need, not what they say they need.

2. Build only what’s absolutely necessary

Every feature that is added gets in the way of something else.

3. Support the user’s mental model

Putting an item to the trashcan makes sense. Green letters on a black screen don’t.

4. Turn beginners into intermediates immediately

Add features that help advance users of products.

5. Handle errors

People blame themselves for usability problems, usually it’s not their fault.

6. Design for uniformity, consistency and meaning

Make designs uniform, consistent and give them meaning.

7. Reduce and refine

Instead of adding more stuff, make what you have better.

These are the basic principles, which he uses to design web apps, and these principles can be applied to all types of design. The three examples he used were Myspace, Facebook and Amazon. Myspace could learn a thing or two by using the principles from this list. And I guess they will since Mr. Hoekman mentioned he’s working on a project for them. I don’t participate in Myspace or Facebook, but from the lecture and discussion it sounds like Myspace contradicts most of these principles. They need to start ignoring their users, they ask what the users want and give it to them. They start adding all the stuff the customers want, and it’s cluttered. They build way more than what is absolutely necessary. There designs are not uniform and consistent. Since everyone can change his or her own layout, the design is not at all consistent. It sounds like Facebook followed these principles better. Their design is more uniform and consistent, but it also sounded like they may have a few too many features. They should probably start reducing and refining a bit. Amazon.com was another example. According to the lecture, this was a good example of what not to do. I don’t know if I entirely agree with this. I will admit that it is somewhat overloaded with buttons and dropdowns, but for how much information they have to present, I think they are doing it in the best way possible.