design_for_people_-_john_d_lee
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
design_for_people_-_john_d_lee [2025/08/15 11:19] admin |
design_for_people_-_john_d_lee [2025/08/15 23:22] (current) admin |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| ### Use cases | ### Use cases | ||
| Use cases analysis is more detailed. It can be described in a more formal way in a flow diagram, helping move from conceptual design to a software or hardware prototype. | Use cases analysis is more detailed. It can be described in a more formal way in a flow diagram, helping move from conceptual design to a software or hardware prototype. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ### Further readings | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[https://dschool.stanford.edu/tools/the-gift-giving-project|Standord wallet exercise]] This exercise provides a brief exposure to design thinking. The goal is to practice designing and recognizing a user’s need and then translating that need into a prototype product that is then evaluated | ||
| + | |||
| Line 76: | Line 82: | ||
| ### Heuristic evaluation | ### Heuristic evaluation | ||
| - | Heuristic Evaluation is done internally, with 3 individuals inspect the design and identify if there is anything violating design principles, safety requirement, etc. | + | Heuristic Evaluation is done internally, with 3 individuals inspect the design and identify if there is anything violating design principles, safety requirement, etc. |
| + | |||
| + | #### Check with 10 Design principles | ||
| + | Use design principles to give quick input on whether the design are consistent with human capabilities. | ||
| + | |||
| + | - Create useful innovation: Address a need, solve a problem | ||
| + | - Attend to details: Small changes to the design can have a big effect on people. | ||
| + | - Simplify: Remove irrelevant information, but do not mask essential indicators and feedback | ||
| + | - Honest and understandable: Functions should be reflected in forms that make their states visible, changes predictable, and interactions intuitive | ||
| + | - Provide flexibility: People should be able to **adjust, navigate, undo and redo, adopt shortcuts** | ||
| + | - Consistency: The same label or action should mean the same thing in different situations — don’t deviate from well-defined conventions | ||
| + | - Anticipate needs: Provide options rather than require people to recall them. Choose **thoughtful defaults** because people often adopt initial settings | ||
| + | - Minimize memory demands: Interactions with technology should not disrupt the flow of activities unless necessary | ||
| + | - Consider adaptation: Adopt a systems perspective to identify otherwise unanticipated outcomes, particularly as people adapt to the changes in the system | ||
| + | - Fit the task to the person rather than the person to the task | ||
| + | |||
| + | #### Check design patterns | ||
| + | |||
| + | Use conventional design pattern if possible. | ||
| + | [[https://ui-patterns.com/patterns|UI Design Patterns]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | #### Conduct cognitive walkthrough | ||
| - | Then you can do cognitive walkthrough as well: | ||
| * Is it likely that the person will perform the right action? | * Is it likely that the person will perform the right action? | ||
| * Does the person understand what task needs to be performed? | * Does the person understand what task needs to be performed? | ||
design_for_people_-_john_d_lee.1755227970.txt.gz · Last modified: 2025/08/15 11:19 by admin