Everybody listen to me! ARCast.net


Back before I joined Microsoft (but while I was in the end of a seemingly endless series of job interviews) I was interviewed by Ron Jacobs from Microsoft/ARCast/Skyscapr (not a job interview… I don’t think). The interview was at Bondi Icebergs, and was actually on camera but I guess my ugly mug was left on the cutting room floor. Hear me talk about user-centred design, paper prototyping and other stuff.


ARCast.net – User Experience Interaction Design

Comments (3)

  1. scbarnes says:

    w000t go shane! 🙂

  2. Scott Rippon says:

    G’day Shane

    Nice one.  Thank for the heads up on your interview 🙂

    I liked the presenter Vitruvius quote at the start of the presentation "firmitas, utilitas, venustas" (strong or durable, useful, and beautiful).  It reminded me of Norman’s 3 levels of design (visceral, behavioral and reflective) that he talked about in Emotional Design.

    I totally agree with your comments about the importance of being engaged early on in the project.  In your experience, working in this industry, do you feel that there has been a noticeable shift towards earlier engagement with UCD/usability practitioners?

    I’d be interested to hear more of your thoughts on interfaces which evolved with your experience.  Are there any seminal papers on this topic you’d recommend looking at?

    It was a while ago but the last thing I read on this topic was by an author who really paid them out.  I really wish I could remember who the author was, it might have been Cooper or Raskin.  There main criticisms were how do you determine when a user becomes an "expert" and having an interface that changes over time could be jarring and cause confusion for the user.

    Catch you tomorrow 😀

    Cheers,

    Scott.

  3. Jas says:

    Nice one Shane some very interesting points. Especially to do with how clients get a better idea of the functional requirements using paper prototypes.. Maybe its just my clients but I always tend to find they have more of an opinion and buy in when they have something tangible to play with. I can’t count the number of times sitting in spec meetings that their eyes glaze over when presented with wireframes, storyboards and sitemaps. Most web clients aren’t technical and don’t always understand what they are asking for. And in the new era of web dev, there aren’t super huge budgets to be spent on scoping, analysis and planning. A shame I know.. We all don’t play at the high end of town.

    Though there is some truth in that they get caught up in colors and fonts. Though in my experience the design comps/concepts generally shake out all these issues, long before the css/cutup joy begins. Usually…

    Clicking thru a workflow or site navigation, filling out the forms (omg not another form) and experiencing the interaction usually makes them think functionally and not theoretically. So client testing is always a joy when you see the penny drop and then all those ideas and thoughts start bubbling to the surface. You sit their smiling and scream (on the inside) why didn’t you think of this sooner when I was asking all those questions and talking wireframes…

    Another approach that is gaining some traction in the web dev framework space is FLiP (the Fusebox Lifecycle Process). FLiP insists that no technical architecting be done until the user interface (the "front end") is complete, so complete that users can try out the software before it’s actually built. How’s that for a 360? (http://www.fusebox.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=fusebox.overviewFLiP). Its something we’re seriously considering as alternative approach.

    Thoughts??

    Ps I hope they bought you lunch, and good luck with the ums and ahhs..