Joy's presentation reminds me the importance of the design process at the beginning. The importance of the user,

which we develop and design everything for. The example of the interactive TV is pretty classical. While everybody,

especially the designers are addicted to their ideas. They would ignore the disadvantage laid in front of them. When

I did game developing, it's such a long process so that in the end of the development, all the team member lost

their sensebility to the game. We could not tell is it good or bad, fun or boring. At that time, we can not do anything to the game. So the begining part is the most important part for the design. Asking different people with different background, use the techniques to gain more responce from them. A good designer should always observe his user and customer.

S. Joy Mountford Presentation Comments:

Ms. S. Joy Mountford's presentation was very beneficial to me, as it added a very important step to realizing any project or product, which I had forgotten.

In my Eye-Comm project, working with like minded people, such as Dr. Torch and my collegues here at USC, I often forget that it is the other people besides ourselves who I really need to concentrate on reaching. I was happy to hear her talk about observing people and using the analogy of Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston from the early days of Disney and Walt's "Nine Old Men" and their observations and exacting reproductions of animals like the Albatross in "The Rescuers." I have read "The Illusion of Life" several times and I was surprised that I never drew the correlation between observing those who will most likely use my product and comparing them to those who may never even buy it and from that observation I may divine the best way to proceed in my design.

It is essential to the research and design process that we observe closely the Users. Especially with my Thesis research, which will create a product which will directly interface with a human user, it may become part of their everyday lives and actions. And so, now, through Ms. Mountford's eloquent explanation of User testing and focus group research, I see how I might better obtain ideas for content to add to the overall ease of use that I hope the Eye-Comm will someday have.

Joy Mountford's presentation was very fascinating, as I have worked previously with quantitative and qualitative research for testing, especially (like she mentioned) the use of testing for marketing. It was very worthwhile to get a bit of the flip side of this type of research, which intrigues and excites me.

I find myself fascinated with interface design, and would like to study the differences between generations in terms of (speaking mainly of GUI's) use of metaphor, functionality, flow of information and iconic representation. I think a very interesting research experiment would be, similar to Joy's test of the arrow design with Apple engineers, testing functions of browser buttons with different age groups, ie what should a back button look like?

I also thought Joy's comments on objectivity and tone, body language when asking for and receiving criticism were very relevant, I am determined to try to remain very objective about my own passions, as well as provide constructive and honest criticism to others without fear of offending. Maybe I'll need to bring a friend along to keep me honest :).

Joy mentioned that she had written some papers on her research studies, and I would very much like to get a hold of those.

I'd like to thank Joy for her presentation and especially for reminding me that research is the most overlooked but important phase of the design process.

Mountford's presentation was important for our group (2nd year) to hear. All to often, during class and in discussion, I feel that we get into a rut of thinking about the end user expierence based on our definitions of good design. I like the fact that she emphasized getting an outside opinion, especially someone who isn't your friend or even within the same expierence/interest. Once we get some projects under our belt, I feel these "open houses" we keep discussing would be beneficial in this manner.

Ms. Mountford mentioned simplicity very briefly, but didn't elaborate any further. I believe she said something to the effect that it was extremely important. Is simplicity everything though? Does that over-ride other factors in the end users expierence in the long run? I would like to know more about the facets of simplicity.

There was a bullet point on her slides about the approach to designing for the user (I think). It said that it was not scientific because of opinion. I agree and disagree with this point. The approach to design and the user should be scientific at first, developing a clear idea, questioning it, revising it and testing it. The opinion seems to be something that defines the outcome. I know that the subject material isn't a science project per-say, but it definitely helps to take a logical/methodical approach.

Like Julie, I'm also coming from a background in the area (lots of reading and experience in human factors, chi, and usability). That being said, I agree that Joy Mountford definitely made some good points that are worth repeating wrt observation and empathy (users aren't wrong, and they're not 'just stupid') that just can't be stressed enough. These principles of course extend across the entire design process (and beyond).

Also interesting was the observation about having user group participants bringing friends and the effect both of their comfort level and their truthfulness.

Some notes:
* I agree with Mike to an extent about the not being a science part. Usability definitely benefits from scientific approaches. Also, especially in my experiences (web), interface changes can almost always be emperically tested. And in many cases with applied changes, ROI can be directly calculated (say, by percentage of abandoned shopping carts)

* That being said, I can definitely see Mountford's point. For example, in the latter part of her presentation, she talks about presentation, and like the other soft factors mentioned, that's definitely a big deal. Certainly perception is just as important as 'actual' usability when the wholistic view of user experience is taken into account.

Some thoughts I had during the presentation:
* Influence Marketing/Technical depts have on usability
* When ease of use is at cross purposes with strategic positions/business model
* Predicting user savviness, expectations for a product
* Differences in testing physical vs digital products

One element that I agreed with in importance was a necessary separation between the designer and the product, or at least letting the product speak for itself. This applies to just about any media...you aren't always going to be in the audience when people view your film, and you're rarely going to stand looking over their shoulder when they use your software...so you have to see how the product functions on its own. Your very presence, like a physicist measuring a particle, affects the experiment. I can see why the one-way mirror is key in these situations.

Once again, I remembered that seemingly superficial elements can also affect products. While watching the bead/beat box, I kept thinking "You know, I'd kinda like something like that, but not in that color...maybe a nice, classy, wood finish." It was nice to have Joy's comments vindicate my thoughts right after ("...maybe sharper image..."). I think this goes a long way, though not all the way, toward solving many difficult demographic questions.

Early starts...another good lesson from the lecture. While many ideas start from half-thoughts that should percolate a while without outside interference, a lot of bad ideas can also nipped in the bud just by asking for an outside perspective.

On the other end of the pipeline, Joy's observations on the gradual, iterative nature of the products also interested me: Often these studies are not as much for the product in question as much as the next product. This also put some things into perspective (and suddenly made a lot of manufactured products make more sense).

I'm still trying to resolve my desire for arcane intrigue in my projects with a desire for a wider audience...I suppose that's a common enough conflict.

I really enjoyed having Mountford come and speak . . . for me, she was the best speaker yet. She covered a lot of ground and different areas, but it was all really useful. While she seemed to have a great grasp on design, especially for interactivity, it was wonderful to see someone who could also understand people and how they relate to things and to each other. Like Jenova said (wrote?), many times we totally forget about people and tend to focus on our own idea of what might be a great design.

Also, her comment that design is "structured art" really struck me. Design is definitely a place where art has to satisfy the needs/wants of a certain group of people, so it can't just be the artist's expression.

Joy was a really important person for all of us to listen to as designers, not only for who she is, but the side of design that she represents. I think that most of us, including myself much of the time, tend to ignore crucial aspects of the design process. Form over function, form and function over usability. the apple example was especially telling- a nice example of a company taking the seemingly trivial steps necessary to allow people to interface with their product in a way in which the design doesn't confound intent - that is, that the design doesn't get in the way of engaging with the product. With interactive design, if that interface is confused or lost, we fail.

It was also interesting seeing her reactions to some student projects, and hearing her point out their successes and shortcomings. it's nice to see simple projects that meet with success based on the quality of the actual work mixed with a clarity in presentation, rather than the quality of the presentation superceding the content. I think this is an important lesson to take to heart.

Having Joy speak was a pleasure. She has a wealth of knowledge to share and I was glad to absorb what I could in the two hours she spoke.

User testing is a part of the product development process we often don’t hear about. I found it informative and beneficial to hear Joy speak on the subject. Learning the process is helpful to us all. Since most of us will be working on things never seen or imagined before, knowing how user testing can benefit the design process is imperative.

I really liked how she thought a prototype should be created as early as possible in the design process. To get things out in front of the team early in the process makes so much sense. That way you’re not spending time developing without an idea of what this thing actually does, how it feels, looks, etc.

The student projects from last year gave me some good insight into what people at our level are producing. I found it interesting to hear why each project was successful and where it needed improvement.

Having Joy speak was a pleasure. She has a wealth of knowledge to share and I was glad to absorb what I could in the two hours she spoke.

User testing is a part of the product development process we often don’t hear about. I found it informative and beneficial to hear Joy speak on the subject. Learning the process is helpful to us all. Since most of us will be working on things never seen or imagined before, knowing how user testing can benefit the design process is imperative.

I really liked how she thought a prototype should be created as early as possible in the design process. To get things out in front of the team early in the process makes so much sense. That way you’re not spending time developing without an idea of what this thing actually does, how it feels, looks, etc.

The student projects from last year gave me some good insight into what people at our level are producing. I found it interesting to hear why each project was successful and where it needed improvement.

oops...

I really enjoyed Joy’s presentation and the issues that were discussed. When conceptualizing projects and ironing out ideas, it is essential to talk things out and think about the end user. Earlier that day, I had a discussion with Julie and Kellee about the importance of the audience and taking into account that everyone will have access to a potential project. By only catering ideas/potential product designs to a very limited slice of the general population, developers are weeding out potential audiences from the get go. This upfront discrimination will limit the access a potential user might have to enjoy a great product or idea.

It was also very helpful to see the research that goes into creating interfaces and products. Her slides relating to all of the different means of doing research and the ways in which they are carried out were very valuable. Overall, I really appreciated the focus on preplanning and usability.

"There is no perfect program for the field you're in," said Joy Mountford last Wednesday. This statement was both sobering and encouraging. It reminded me of the newness of our field and re-affirmed my excitement about it. Her statement actually made me wonder just what exactly people in other programs are doing. To that end, I'm thinking about trying to get in touch with some of these people--maybe starting with UCI and UCLA.

In general, Joy's talk made me think about an aspect of product development that I seldom have--user testing. She went over several potentially useful ways to test our own thesis & product ideas.

The thing she said that was most useful to me was something to the effect of: "just put something together quickly, you can always change your design later," as opposed to agonizing over the minutia of what you're going to make before you start it. I often fall into that kind of agonizing. But the times that I've pressed ahead, despite my uncertainties are the times I've had the greatest success. So I guess I sort of already knew this in the back of my head somewhere, but it was a nice reminder.

Joy’s presentation was extremely helpful and informative. However, there were a few highlights that spoke to my own experiences and interests.

As stated in my application to USC’s Interactive Media MFA program - “I believe most interface designs are as archaic to the digital revolution as index cards are to a contemporary library. Most software does not take advantage of basic human cues for navigating in space (i.e. the third and fourth dimensions, light sources, atmosphere, and sound reverberation).”

My original thoughts were confirmed and enriched when Joy mentioned the association of the “Principles of TRADITIONAL Animation” to usability. Like Joy, I was inspired by some of the great Disney Animators when working as a Disney Imagineer. I applied many of the character and color theories from the classic animations to my designs for Theme Parks and Interactive Exhibits. However it didn’t occur to me that the abstraction of human movement could directly apply.

I plan to further investigate this fascinating link between traditional animation techniques and interface design. As Joy pointed out, there is a strong connection between navigational interface and usability with concepts like “Ease-In/Out”, “Gravity”, “Volume”, etc. I would be interested and honored to partner with Joy and others on these concepts.

I think most if not all of us consider usability to be vitally important. Most of the time designs are complex and unpredictable. It’s just really hard to separate your role as creator / designer and come at the design from the viewpoint of a user.

I’m very interested in usability that is intuitive. Intuition by its definition is mysterious. You don’t necessarily know why exactly something is true or false, it just strikes an unconscious chord in you. We are subjective beings and have relative tastes, but we also have strong collective unconscious connections. It’s those shared human qualities that I think are important to theorize and investigate into with concern to developing a great usable design.

Coming from a perspective of someone who’s designed characters and tried to come up with new ideas, using the Principle’s of Animation that Ollie and Frank spelled out make a great deal of sense. When Joy brought them up, I was immediately reminded of the last, and most mysterious of the principles: Appeal.

From The Illusion of Life: “[appeal is] anything that a person likes to see, a quality of charm, pleasing design, simplicity, communication, and magnetism.” They go on to talk about clearly communicating an idea within the restrictions of the medium: “The constant battle is to find the elements that will look best in this medium and still allow the strongest communication of the idea presented.”

Appeal in the end is what separates the good designs from the great. That which taps into something that people unconsciously are drawn to and many times are fascinated by. A wonderful drawing professor of mine named Barbara Walton once wrote in her syllabus something to the effect of: “You can fake a lot of things, but in the end you can’t fake self-expression of deep meanings and insights that come from being sensitive to ideas and amassing a wide body of knowledge over time.”

Being sensitive and fine-tuning your powers of observation is integral to animation and design. A great design, or a great life-like animation doesn’t come from empirical or efficiency tests. There is a degree of magic to it; it’s not all Disney hype. It is living a life that is in touch with the world around you. It’s sitting and just people watching. It’s keeping your imagination healthy and fit. If you do that long enough, your intuition becomes progressively refined and sophisticated. It's not going to come simply from surveys and interviews and thinking objectively.

after dwelling on this for a week...
this presentation focused more heavily on the commercial aspects of prosuct design, something that i can't deny is important, but appeals less to me then other facets of production.

i am more interested in new applications and combinations and thought processes then how they will sell on a shelf.

saying it that way makes me sound as if i dont care about the end user or the marketablity of a product, which isn't true. but the talk was not specific about bringing new technologies to market or how existing interfaces/technologies/etc drive future ones.

i would like to hear her thoughts on some of these items that speak more directly to what we are working towards and with, though the information she passed along this time was invaluable.

i enjoyed the talk overall; its refreshing to have such a variety of people speaking to us about all facets - from art to production to history to development, etc.

It seems absurd to me now, after reflecting on Joy's talk, that the topic of user testing and focus groups hasn't come up until now in an interactive design program. If we are truly concerned about the interface between human and machine, then we cannot create anything in an environment devoid of user feedback and hope to achieve the maximum success. Regardless of what kind of interactivity we are interested in exporing, the user is the ultimate authority, supplying designers with the necessary data to craft each experience and finely tune the interface. It seems to me that we often get carried away, living and working so close to technology, we are intellectually and emotionally invested in projects to the extent that our perspective narrows, causing us to miss opportunities that we would otherwise be able to exploit. Rather than backtrack after months of development are rendered useless in light of user testing at the end of a project, I would like my designs to be enhanced by an awareness of the response/reaction of audiences. As much as I trust my instinct, I firmly believe that the best work comes out of environments that challenge our intuition and force to reflect and refine our decisions in design. So without sacrificing my control of a project, I look forward to learning about the user experience straight from the mouths of the target demographics.

How could I have not commented on Joy's presentation until now? Sorry I flaked, because I really enjoyed it. I've told almost everyone about the albatross video!

I really took to the discussions on observation and user testing. It reminded me how there is no harm in sketching an idea out and then asking a bunch of people what they think of it before you commit yourself to a huge project.

Sometimes just taking those first steps can be so scary! But Joy's advice on the importance of presentation and pre-production will definitely come in handy.