Graphics Reference
In-Depth Information
This is when we learn that the devil is in the details. We thought long and hard about
that shade of blue for the background, but does it confirm our expectations? Do users find
it soothing? Or is it more like a tranquilizer, numbing them into inaction? Button sizes,
menu placements and basics like logging in and purchasing, all come into play here. This is
where our users tell us if their actions meet our intentions. It's also where we learn exactly
what our design does in practice.
When our product meets its user often it's like Fitzgerald's ideas bumping up against
one another. One wields the tool; one is the tool. Can they work in tandem? This is when
control becomes an issue. The designer creates and shapes each facet with a particular
method in mind. He assumes his user will see it the same way he does. But when the
product actually reaches the user, all bets are off. Maybe the user will follow the precise
path laid out by the designer. Or maybe she won't. When users fail to validate our initial
assumptions, that might be a sign of failure. Or it might not.
Our user might see the design in an entirely different way. She might not even notice the
link to a second page where an array of activities, products and functions await her. Though
we might've put most of our time and effort into that second page of perfectly placed op-
tions, we now see that that she's using our conveniently located search box, bypassing the
route we'd set out for her. She types in what she wants, moving directly to her destination.
From there, she makes several other stops the designer never saw coming. This is where
the designer's intention must take a back seat to consumer satisfaction. The user likes the
design for all the wrong reasons. She spends her money, and comes back for more. None of
our assumptions work, but the product does. In such a case, the product surprises and de-
lights to its users, while at the same time its users surprise, bewilder, and finally please its
designer. This is the designer's opportunity to learn. We know what goes into our products,
but only our users can tell us what they'll get out of them.
Though a product might perform its primary function in a variety of astonishing ways,
ultimately it almost always must fulfill that function. A web page at an online bookseller
must sell topics. A digital thermometer must measure temperature. A GPS device must give
us our location. Each of us might find our own path to the function, but if it doesn't do what
we need it to do, it fails. This is one reason to limit a user's choices. If we present him with
a thousand options, his decision-making process breaks down. The myriad of possibilities
transform into an impermeable psychological wall. Instead of banging his head against that
barrier, the user goes elsewhere.
Another frequent outcome is that of cognitive dissonance, when a user, frustrated by
seemingly infinite choices, finds an inefficient and inferior method to do what he wants to
