Week 1 Response

Why is user-centred design important? So users can use the... whatever. Easily. Without a lot of hassle or time dedicated to learning new modes of navigation or interface convention. This is why we see convention repeated over and over again: in computer software (all Adobe design programs share commonalities in toolboxes/workspace setup, etc), in ABM menu systems, in microwaves and lots of other places we probably don't notice in day-to-day use. The next best thing to intuitive design is repetitive design, where you MAY have to learn a few intricacies that don't come naturally, but at least the experience will be transferable to other iterations of similar devices. Nobody wants to be frustrated... they just want to GET THINGS DONE.

Which is why a lot of video games are awful, specifically in menu navigation. Controlling in-game options is often a mishmash of menu searching (I'm thinking specifically of EA Sports games), the layout of which is often unique to a particular game. There's usually no continuity, no repetition of familiarity, which leads to a lot of angry experimentation in the first few days of play as one tries to get a handle on menu peculiarities. Most of the time this is simply a matter of minor delays - 2 minutes here, 5 seconds there - but frustration adds up. Why do these options cycle in sequence, but the set of options right below them cycle randomly? I can't even see where the active icon is, because this interface is so X-Treme that it makes no god damn sense! How am I supposed to know that the sudden appearance of a skateboarding puppy wearing goggles means I'm choosing to quit the game?

I'm recommending simplicity and continuity here. Although it's unrealistic to expect all game production companies to adhere to some aesthetic standard, at least companies could follow Adobe's lead and implement some degree of interface familiarity spanning multiple titles. EA can continue developing awkward and non-intuitive menus for all I care, but if they used the same design consistently at least the learning curve would be a little less steep. Of course, the better option would be to play-test until it becomes readily apparent that cryptically complicated interfaces will leave even tech-savvy players nonplussed... not a good sign for the casual market. Also get away from the linearity I keep seeing in menu hierarchies. It often seems to be overlooked that not everyone will be searching for options in the same way. Open the branches a bit, I don't want to look down through three embedded sets of options before what I want finally makes itself visible.

Number 2... cell phones? Don't use them. They're interactive because they mediate a two-way dialogue that would not otherwise be accessible. Of course, sometimes cell phones are a little TOO interactive... they'll try to initiate dialogue with you at inappropriate times (i.e. ringing in class, buzzing in church). Interactivity is usually seen from the perspective of 'Well, if I'm not there it can't really work, can it? I need to PARTICIPATE for this to go right.' However, pervasive interactivity (such as cell phones) that infringe upon their user's attention are changing this perspective. In conclusion, cell phones are the devil.