From the CHI2001 panel.
I’m in full-on usability testing mode right now — 4 tests in the last 2 weeks — and happen to work in tandem with a Usability Specialist from an Ergonomics/Human Factors background (no, we didn’t all get degrees in Human Factors). We argue constantly about nearly everything, but I value it because I’m forced to question how I operate and the principles upon which I base the work I do. This article does the same.
I went home this weekend for a long-overdue visit. Yes, I ate corn (popcorn) and BBQ (chicken). No, I didn’t wear my overalls, thanks.
The true “hypertext” is dwindling…in place of the hypertext, we have what might best be termed the “hyperchunk” – the succinct slice of high-quality information designed to be stored in a database, linked from all over, understood quickly and in relative isolation, and often acted upon within a few minutes.
The article goes on to discuss the idea of a hyperchunk as being part of a larger ecology of hyperchunks all competing for attention. While the article article rightly emphasizes the importance of making your hyperchunks self-sustaining, the article misses the boat by claiming that what affects “competition” within the space is simply the quality of the content: it’s how one is locates those chunks in the first place. Most hyperchunks are linked to from other hyperchunks, giving it a context–we’re not just using Google to find every chunk on the web (though for some we do). Site and author reputation do matter; links do matter.
There are two new books, both called “The Attention Economy” — this one and this one — so we’ll probably be hearing much more about this kind of stuff (though I’m wondering how it will differ from some of the ideas in meme theory).
It’s always interesting to me to see biological theories co-opted into other realms. The study of evolution and ecology are continually plundered for new ideas, from meme theory (originally discussed by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene) to foraging theory (the basis for information foraging/scent of information theories), and so on. I enjoy seeing it when ideas that weren’t such a big deal in one field — Dawkins just tossed off the idea of memetics in passing, and foraging theory isn’t hot stuff in the world of ecology — go flourish elsewhere.
More on attention on the web:
The Attention Economy and the Net from First Monday
Check out page 7 of InCA 2001.issue1 [.pdf] (don’t worry, I think it’s worth the effort). It’s a diagram that lists various user-centered design techniques across two axes: person vs. artifact focused, and rational vs. empirical. I like this diagram because it forces you (or at least me) to evaluate which techniques I use and why I use them. Focus too much on one approach, lose sight of the big picture.
It reminds me in a way of JJG’s Elements of User Experience, another one of those diagrams that puts everything in perspective. Richard Saul Wurman would be so proud.
The other InCA issues are quite juicy with designer thoughts as well.
via Brad
A heads-up for anyone in the SF Bay Area: tonight’s BayCHI meeting is “Understanding User Experience: Using Ethnography, Contextual Inquiry and other Qualitative Methods”, and looks to be pretty good. Say hi if you’re there.
How can I listen to these mixes?
You can’t through Art of the Mix. Best bet is to contact the person and arrange a trade. Don’t be afraid! Most people are more than willing to engage in the thrill of long distance exchange. The entire concept of trust and interest comes into play and is powerful.
On wunderkammern and museum displays. There’s a shot or two couple from the American Museum of Natural History, where I worked a couple of years ago (Remember the scene in “Election” where Matthew Broderick is leading the tour group? My desk was mere feet from there). The museum itself was quite an exhibit — you could see the evolution of displays from dioramas in dark halls to open, airy walkarounds for the dinosaur skeletons to the layering of multimedia over the immersive environment of the Hall of Biodiversity.
Focus groups have lost their focus. Once a cutting-edge technique for probing the psyche of the public, they’ve outlived their usefulness. They are like a tired magician performing the same tricks week after week in the Catskills. Call ’em focus-pocus groups, for after a company has conducted hundreds of focus-group interviews, its likelihood of uncovering a truly fresh perspective is almost nonexistent. It isn’t enough to hear what people say they want. You have to find a way for people to show what they want, and that won’t happen in the stilted environment in which focus groups occur.
Interface is… by nadav won 2nd place in the 5k, and I can see why — it’s a nice minimalist piece of graphics with just a bit of text. The themes he ponders lend themselves to abstraction, and the result is cohesive, thoughtful, and elegant.