NMD 442 Sophia C-C

Click here for article The metrics Google created for its designers to use as a guideline, HEART, is part of what makes the Google suite so powerful and pervasive.  The goal of the rubric is to build a system that is more effective at carrying out its intended purpose[Task success] thereby satisfying a user[Happiness] as well as encouraging them to want to use it more often[Engagement], become loyal to it[Adoption], and to continue to use it[Retention].  The result of this is the Google suite that has become standard for school systems, workplaces, and personal affairs.  I have not used Microsoft office since my sophomore year of highschool, mainly because using Google Drive is simply easier and more convenient; I can access whatever I'm working on from any computer or smartphone that has an internet connection.  The Google suite is simple and nearly seamless to use, and upon finding their rubric for product development, how they achieved this product makes more sense to me.

Click here for article After reading this article multiple times I was left with a general feeling of confusion.  I generally don't like ucdesign.cc's articles.  They tend to be poorly written and difficult for me to understand.  I was able to glean some interesting things out of the article however.  I did not know that Netflix followed the scientific method while executing product tests, and while it makes perfect sense, it is not something that had occurred to me as a possibility.  One of the graphics in the article was intriguing because I could see exactly why it had the results that it did. I first saw the image when I skimmed the article and had a visceral reaction to the default artwork.  It just feels like there is too much motion and chaos in the image, whereas the most popular image is extremely visually appealing. Discussion Questions: One of Chen's points was to pay as much if not more attention to what a user does  as what they say. In terms

Click here for article I thought that the source of this article was interesting because it was written by the director of research of Intercom, the website that produced the article.  In part of the article she discusses how sketching revealed a critical problem with the development of their company's product; the people working together on it did not have a common goal or vocabulary with which to discuss it, and no-one really had any idea until they did this sketching exercise.  I like seeing how the way that I think and process information is something that can be used in professional settings, not just me explaining my weird idea for a two-headed dragon to someone.   Completely unrelated to the actual article, but the animation of the line that told the reader how close to the end of the article was really well implemented.   Discussion Questions: What would the 'dog bone' look like for someone who lived on campus?  If there were to be a redesign of

Click here for article I thought that the name of the article (Metrics Versus Experience) was interesting simply because the first point of the article was "don't frame stuff as 'Metrics Versus Experience.'"  The actual content of the article was a nice insight into something I am only barely aware of:  the metrics used to analyze the success of a website or product.  I have interacted with them in terms of Instagram(there is a feature that lets you see how many people have seen a post and how many people have interacted with a post, and how those numbers stack up against your other posts) and Google analytics(which lets you see where people who access your website are from and how they are getting to the site), but I have never had to use them to better execute a product.  In Zhou's article, she talks about different ways to figure out which metrics you should actually track, and I liked the way she explained it because it's similar to the way I te

The concepts discussed in Dan Norman's were interesting because I hadn't consciously noticed them, but as soon as he brought up an example it made total sense.  It reminded me of Bill Moggridge's iceberg metaphor-- I subconsciously understood, appreciated, and experienced these elements but never applied conscious brain effort into noticing them.  That is a skill I want to work on in the future: making a concerted effort to look at the design that goes into what I encounter on a day to day basis.   I like to think of myself as a sort of designer, as I have been masterminding my own knitting and sewing projects for years.  More recently I have been trying to extend my design work into app and/or game design, and I think that the elements of design he outlines, specifically the visceral and behavioral elements will be useful to keep in mind and cater to in that work.       

Bill Moggridge's talk about his book 'Interaction Design - Beyond Human-Computer Interaction' A short series of eulogies. The Moggridge videos we watched this week were useful in that they gave more context to the first one we watched('What is Design?'), which looks to be a condensed version of his Stanford talk (Designing Interactions).  I liked the interviews that he filmed and included in the talk;  hearing more about the design process that went into Google's home page was fascinating, especially their system of adding things.  I had not given any thought to how streamlined a search engine really should be, I think that may be part of what I dislike about Bing.  Bing's home page is cluttered with images and links, making it less appealing to use. Bing's homepage The second video, the compilation of people's remembrances, didn't really provide any technical knowledge, instead it provided more insight on who Moggridge was.  Th

At the beginning of the semester, we were asked to complete some sketching exercises.  The first was to draw 10 methods for phones to share files.  They were not required to be realistic or feasible.

What is Design?  lecture by Bill Moggridge Based on this week's assignment, I think I will find the textbook helpful due to the technical information it provides, but will find the videos and articles a better source for concepts and ideas. I really appreciated the the model of phone call services and the activities presented in the text; I think that they provided a way of thinking about design that I will be able to apply to challenges given in class. The list of roles that emerged as interactions became more complex and required more diverse skills was interesting, I had never heard of an information architect or a usability engineer, but those roles being specialized ones makes a lot of sense. Bill Moggridge's talk was helpful in that it cemented some concepts that I had a tangential grasp on, as well as pointing out things I had barely considered.  I think my favorite thing he talked about was his iceberg metaphor: that the things that can be consciously taught ab