SIGIA-L Mail Archives: RE: SIGIA-L: quick request: page layouts
RE: SIGIA-L: quick request: page layouts
From: Lyle_Kantrovich_at_cargill.com
Date: Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:40:32 EST
George,
Excellent points. I think we need more open discussion about research
methodology and rigor in CHI and IA circles. I'm actually slated to
present at an upcoming UPA-MN meeting on this kind of topic. I think
too many people look to research to "prove" their own opinions or they
use their Trivial Pursuit style knowledge of research as a way to
flaunt their "expertise". If we really care about applicability of
research, then we have to look under the covers at methodology and
rigor. As you point out, you can't just look at what they DID
research, but sometimes it important to think about what wasn't
included or who wasn't talked to.
Regards,
Lyle Kantrovich
User Experience Architect
Cargill
http://www.cargill.com
Croc O' Lyle: commentary on usability, IA, and web design
http://crocolyle.blogspot.com
-----Original Message-----
From: george.olsen_at_pobox.com [mailto:george.olsen_at_pobox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 12:07 AM
To: sigia-l_at_asis.org
Subject: RE: SIGIA-L: quick request: page layouts
At 10:06 PM -0700 4/2/02, Jess McMullin wrote:
>goes against our precious intuition. That's ok, it went against my
precious
>intuition too - when I saw this in 1997 (From a UIE talk at SGML/XML
97 in
>NY). I was so sure this was wrong I went and did a study on page
layout with
>54 first-year psych students. And gosh, intuition isn't always what we
>should rely on, because UIE's point is right:
OTOH, I'd also also treat this particular study with caution for two
reasons:
1) It was written in 1996, based on research done earlier, so you're
dealing with very early web design -- which was often poorly done,
period.
2) UIE at that point wasn't real experienced with content issues --
since they'd come from software UI, where there just ain't a lot of
content.
The introduction to the report makes it painfully clear how
inexperienced UIE was with content at that point. In summary, it said
there was this new stuff called content on the web and no one had
absolutely no idea how to present it effectively -- except maybe
writers, graphic designers, film makers, etc., who UIE hadn't talked
to.
And many of the conclusions reached were pretty debateable to someone
with a background in publication design. No the web isn't print, but
that doesn't mean principles refined over centuries in publication
design are automatically irrelevant. The main lesson I saw was that
white space used badly produced bad results. Which any decent graphic
designer could've told you.
I don't mean to trash Jared or UIE because I think they've done an
admirable job in learning about new areas beyond traditional software
UI, including content -- in contrast to bad research I continue to
see going on.
But it does point out the need to know something of the researchers'
background when looking at research. Since the early '90s I've seen a
vast amount of bad CHI research because the researchers obviously
didn't know the first thing about graphic design or content strategy
principles and didn't seem particularly interested in talking to
people who did.
--
______________________________________________________
George Olsen george_at_interactionbydesign.com
User Experience Architect
310-993-0467
http://www.interactionbydesign.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:55:08 EST
|
