On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 20:47:49 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 8/3/2015 7:46 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Interaction design = design that implements features that facilitate
>> useful user interaction, rather than features that are focused on "we
>> implemented this feature, and here's an interface to use it".
>>
>> For example, if you have an application that protects web resources,
>> the interface needs to facilitate protecting web resources - it should
>> not focus on configuring individual objects that are used to protect
>> those resources, and leave it to the user to figure out how they are
>> related to each other.
>>
>> Tie idea is that there needs to be some elegance and simplicity in the
>> design.*Most*  software "design" is done during development, rather
>> than preceding it, and so the form follows the interface rather than
>> designing how the interface workflow should work, and then using that
>> as scaffolding for the underlying code that takes care of the details.
> 
> 
> I think I disagree with that concept.
> For me, education is King or Queen. (I am an equal opportunity know it
> all.)
> When you start simplifying complex software to the extent you think the
> man on the Clapham omnibus can operate it without any training. You are
> doing no one any favours. I learnt a word recently. It is nerfed. And
> that is the Micro$oft way.
> Form should follow function, not the other way around.
> IMO

Take a look at Apple products and interfaces, then take a look at 
Microsoft products and interfaces.

Apple understands the benefits of designing before you implement the 
backend.

The trick is to not dumb down the capabilities, but to make them easy to 
use.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message