Information sharing across the social web: usability, minimalist design, and consumer choice

This article in the Atlantichttp://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/the-undesigned-web/65458/ by Dylan Tweney (@dylan20http://twitter.com/#!/dylan20) essentially argues that as consumers adopt a minimalist approach towards reading, sharing (i.e., reformatting content to meet their needs and the needs of their social sphere), and generally consuming content (information), devices like the iPad will engender even more pressure on publishers align usabilty concepts with sound information architecture concepts. Indeed, the iPad imbues a sensual, tactile element to information consumption. Fingertips are one of the most sensitive areas on our bodieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkel_nerve_ending, and by virtually touching, massaging, moving, aligning, etc, information via the iPad transfers a degree of intimacy unmatched by even printed material. Tweney seems to argue that the tactil nature of iPad represents an inflection point in future information design, publishing, and consumption.
As a slight counter-point to Tweney’s missive, this articlehttp://www.fastcodesign.com/1662630/is-undesigned-the-next-great-web-trend-fat-chance argues that Tweney misses the point by claiming that design is dead and makes some excellent points:
“The future is all about designing for multiple use cases[.]“
“Digital design isn’t fading, but it is changing: to keep pace with evolving technology, to drive new economics, to satisfy users’ dynamic desires. Indeed, the fact that we tend to call them “users” in the first place–instead of viewers, readers, or audiences–is important to keep in mind when considering the role or future of digital design.”
The author, John Pavlushttp://twitter.com/johnpavlus, cites many useful sources to support his argument that a minimalist-centric interface is actually the result a complex design-thinking (ala, a Ferrari on the outside appears simple and elegant but underneath the hood it’s a complex machine). Similarly, a minimalist approach can actually be brilliantly enhanced by restricting consumer choice by presenting consumers with well thought-out, curated, and highly selective choices (ala 37 Signals). Finally, both Tweney and Pavlus are joined by researchers who are conducting some very interesting research on this topic: The Paradox of Simplicity: Effects of User Interface Design on Perceptions and Preference of Interactive Systemshttp://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2010/30/ (registration required), A Model of Experience Test for Web Designershttp://eprints.qut.edu.au/18371/1/c18371.pdf, A Model for Understanding Social Commercehttp://proc.conisar.org/2010/pdf/1511.pdf
Photo credit: seier+seierhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/seier/493929328/
This article in the Atlantic by Dylan Tweney (@dylan20) essentially argues that as consumers adopt a minimalist approach towards reading, sharing, and generally consuming content (information), devices like the iPad will put even more pressure on publishers to align usability concepts with sound information architecture concepts. Indeed, the iPad imbues a sensual, tactile element to information consumption.
Fingertips are one of the most sensitive areas on our bodies, and the iPad transfers to a consumer a degree of intimacy by enabling him/her to virtually touch, massage, move, and align information in a very personal way. Tweney seems to argue that the tactile nature of an iPad represents an inflection point in future information design, publishing, and consumption.
As a slight counter-point to Tweney’s missive, this article argues that Tweney misses the point in claiming that “traditional” digital design is dead; as counterpoints, the author points out:
“The future is all about designing for multiple use cases[.]“
“Digital design isn’t fading, but it is changing: to keep pace with evolving technology, to drive new economics, to satisfy users’ dynamic desires. Indeed, the fact that we tend to call them “users” in the first place–instead of viewers, readers, or audiences–is important to keep in mind when considering the role or future of digital design.”
The author, John Pavlus, cites many useful sources in his article to support his argument that minimalist-centric interface design is actually the result of complex design-thinking. Similarly, a minimalist approach can actually be brilliantly enhanced by restricting consumer choice by presenting consumers with well thought-out, curated, and highly selective choices (ala 37 Signals theories). Finally, both Tweney and Pavlus are joined by researchers who are conducting interesting studies on this topic: The Paradox of Simplicity: Effects of User Interface Design on Perceptions and Preference of Interactive Systems (registration required), A Model of Experience Test for Web Designers, A Model for Understanding Social Commerce.
Photo credit: seier+seier

Leave a Reply