COGITO-ERGONOMICO

This screenshot was taken from my mobile phone, while connected to my headset. What would you do if you wanted to disconnect it? You don't know. Affordances: the screen affords touch. You can touch anywhere. Signifiers:  name of the device gear icon Ok, we understand we can tap. But then what happens? I tap on the gear icon -> I expect to open some settings menu I tap anywhere on the line of the device but on the gear icon -> I don't know Let's try adding a clearer signifier What would you do, now, if you wanted to disconnect your headset? In this design, tapping on the switch would switch the connection, while tapping anywhere on the line would open the main action menu.

Android users are Finite State Automata The mobile user is to be considered as an finite State Automata We use our mobiles hundreds of times a day, every interaction with the device being very short. The mobile UX designer cannot assume that we remember exactly where we were in the GUI the last time we used it. Every screen should be easily understandable as it was the first seen screen, with no clues on the previous screens or interactions. A glitched UI design Appropriate Nielsen Heuristic Appropriate Nielsen Heuristic are number 1 and number 6 Visibility of system status Recognition rather than recall Affordances the touch screen --> so I can touch Signifiers left arrow sign --> I can go back input form --> I can input text x sign on the right of the input form --> I can erase the text I entered contact list --> I am in the contact list view of my Android device Android navigation --> I can go back, home, or see the list of ac...

The Wrong Door Dilemma What Would You Do? This is the main entrance of an hospital, in Milan, Italy, seen from outside. Yes, entrance. Think again, what would you do? Or let's say what went wrong with a simple door? It goes wrong when you extend the signifier from the door section to the whole door apparatus. How could we create a conceptual framework that will immediately notify the possibile misinterpretation of our signs and affordances? Let's impersonate an automata state 1: we see a door this door has 4 sections, with no evident clue on any mouvement state 2: we see the 2 signs this door has 2 signs on 2 sections we focus on the 2 signs, we cannot enter;  there isn't any other sign to counteract the prohibition; state 3: we make an inference. We cannot enter. Solution to The Wrong Door Dilemma When using a prohibition sign, in absence of any other positive sign or affordance, add a positive sign or affordance

I'm attending the The virtual conference on Responsive Web Design and the speech of JD Graffam. He's speaking about little details, specifically microinteractions. You won't notice how important are details, until you think they deserve time. And study. He remebered me of Luke Wroblewski, an UX expert I've stumbled on professionally, because of his work for a conference about my business. So I tought, let's start adding some nice links: Luke Wroblewski JD Graffam That's all for now, I'll update this list as soon as I'll find something moving. I mean, really interesting.

Generally, in Western Culture Generally, red is used to mean "stop" or "danger," green to mean "go" or that the system is running normally, and orange to signify "caution" - Introduction to ergonomics, Third Edition By R.S. Bridger Double signals. To ease the creation of the mental maps, some interfaces double the signals for the users. A well-known example is the traffic light. Easy to color-blind people, the signal resides both in the position and in the color. The classic traffic light: the signal to stop is communicated by both the position and the color (in the western culture red is used to mean "stop" or "danger"). The more signals you add to convey the same message, the clearer the message. For pedestrian traffic lights, it's commonly used a system with three coherent signals: color (red for stop, green for go), position (top for stop, bottom for go), shape (a man walking, walk, a ...