Comments on: Zeldman on Usability

By: asd

asd — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:37:34 +0000

By: » From Bokardo - Zeldman on Usability - Best Web Design Blogs

» From Bokardo - Zeldman on Usability - Best Web Design Blogs — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:47:51 +0000

[...] Update: Changed some wording…some folks thought I was arguing with Zeldman. Actually, I was agreeing with him, and finding that his post echoed what I’ve found to be true. Jeffrey Zeldman on how he softened up to usability: “Like many design professionals, I rejected usability when I first encountered it. That s mainly because I first encountered […] Read more… [...]

By: Szymon BÅ‚aszczyk

Szymon BÅ‚aszczyk — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:28:27 +0000

Wars of the Past.
With appropriate knowledge we can see usability as:
1. one of the elements of User Experience (http://jjg.net/elements/)
2. a level in Emotional Design (http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/emotional_desig.html)

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:33:36 +0000

Ian, you’re definitely right, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice good looking design for usability.

However, I think Zeldman’s point, which I’ve seen too, is that it isn’t always an easy thing to do, especially if you come from one of the extremes.

By: Ian Stalvies

Ian Stalvies — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:05:18 +0000

Hopefully as web professionals in 2006 we’re past the extremes (usability-istas in one corner, graphic designers in the other) of the argument. As a rule of thumb, having a “pretty” design DOES add value in itself, provided it doesn’t compromise functionality … if not, we’d probably just populate wireframes with content and whack ‘em up online!

I think this is where the likes of Zeldman, Dan Cederholm etc come into their own – principles leading to sites that are pretty AND easy to get around, as opposed to say, useit.com (no offence to Mr Neilsen, but I’m sure he’d agree design isn’t really his main consideration ;o).

How bout some examples of where functionality and design come together?

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:27:07 +0000

To use an overly-blunt example. A designer should choose colors that are right for the design, not the ones they like best.

One might make the designer more happy, but the other would serve the user’s needs better. Getting over issues like this is critical for designers, and is always a tension. Aligning the two is where the magic happens.

So your point is right on, Dave. There’s wiggle room, but the tension exists.

However, I’m still not convinced that beautiful things work better. There are many, many beautiful things that are hard to use. Norman’s coffeepot, for example…

By: David Malouf

David Malouf — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:54:11 +0000

Dost thou minimize the importance of aesthetics a touch too much?

There is a lot of room for presentation design skills that communicate emotion beyond utilitarian purposes still needed and valuable before we get to “art”.

The problem with the “graphic” or “interactive” designer come to application design is that they are not used to the new modes of aesthetics that need to be worked on, so they are a fish out of water. But that does not mean there isn’t real value in contributing substantial effort towards evoking and controlling the emotional response of the humans who use our solutions.

“Emotional Design” by Don Norman is a good read in this regard. “Beautiful things work better” is a great phrase to remember.

– dave