Skip to main content

Two Hex and a User

I wanted to post two related hex graphs that give us some good mind food to munch on while we work. The first is more general and tells us seven points of User Experience Design. Take a step back and ask yourself:
  • Useful - Is the software even useful?
  • Usable - What it does is useful, but is it usable?
  • Findable - Can the user find what they need to use?
  • Accessible - Can all the users access it?
  • Desirable - Do the users want your 1 software?
  • Valuable - Is your software valuable enough for the user to retain?
  • Credible - Does the software look fake or are you trusted?

Up second, adapted from the original for social software purposes. We're beginning to see more and more social software, and the seven elements given here fit nicely into all the services I use.
  • Twitter - Presence and sharing (of presence) and conversations (about presence).
  • Blogger - Conversations, reputation (comment count), sharing (ideas), groups and relationships (informal; by linking).
  • MySpace - I hate MySpace, but I use it anyway. Relationships and groups are obviously the focus.
I take this in and consider how we break up these elements into different services, and the focus of each service on one or a few elements benefits us. Twitter does great at what it does, etc. But the separation also harms us. The little widgets we can put on different places to connect the services together only go so far. I have too many feeds, but obviously I can't send all my "tweets" through this feed, as is. So we're getting good at breaking things up, but I'm really waiting for how we'll bring it all back together.



1: Two separate emphasis given.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…