Should invalid input to a system respond with something that feels like confusion or anger?
-
-
Replying to @nouswaves
Requiring a user to interact with a narrative is a more intuitive approach than requiring parsing of even the most standardised interface.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
I'm not suggesting step-by-step guides - too often unimodal signalling, and an unnatural extreme restriction of choice.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
.
@sebinsua restricting choice is necessary; certainly natural, probably inevitable. 'Freedom' is fetishized - constraint is what we need1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
@HungLee I had a really weird moment when I suddenly looked at people and institutions as multimodal interfaces.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
@HungLee Like, when you make somebody angry. A mood is a mode. Your choices are restricted, the interface is different. This is natural.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
@HungLee It's hated in interaction design because we haven't found intuitive cues to show a user that the rules of interaction have changed.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nouswaves
@sebinsua perhaps this is because apps are single use. You do not change the interface because the user would simply switch apps1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
A pattern emerges: #messenger, #poke and now #paper. @facebook is now removing multimodality from their app ecosytem. @HungLee
-
-
Replying to @nouswaves
(Not a prediction, so much as a natural phenomenon for diverse reasons: organisational, PR, homepage, and UX considerations.)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.