![](\"https:\/\/osmeusapontamentos.com\/img\/0465051367.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg\")
Chapter 11 – Designing for People
\n– pag. 181
\n“If a user performs a task frequently, it’s interaction must be well crafted. Likewise, if a task is necessary but performed inferquently, it’s interaction, although design with different objectives, must be well design. Tasks that are neither necessary nor frequent simply don’t require carefull design.”<\/p>\n
– pag. 182-184
\nprogrammers design for experts \/ marketers design for beginners vs perpetual intermediates<\/p>\n
pag. 185
\n– “pretend it’s magic. (…) This exercise increases the contrast between tasks and goals. When technology changes, tasks normally chage, but goals remaisn constant. By imagining a magic technology, we force all tasks to change, thus highlighting the goals.”<\/p>\n
pag. 187
\n– “When engineers invent, they arrive at their solution through a succession of pratical, possible steps. Because of this, theis solution will always be derivative of the old, begginning solution, which is often not good enough.”<\/p>\n
pag. 198
\n– “Those gadget-obsessed, control-freak programmers love to fill products with gizmos and features, but that tendency is contrary to a fundamental insight about good design. Less is more”<\/p>\n
Chapter 12 – Desperatly seeking usability
\npag. 205
\n– “Puting design before programming means fundamental change in the software-development process. Programmers, wha re naturally affected by this, see it in vaguely threatning terms. They have heretofore been first and, by implication, most important. If some other discipline comes firs, does that mean the other practitioners are more importante?”<\/p>\n
pag. 207
\n– “Programmers designing. The first ‘volunteers’ to address the problems of the new nontechnical users were the programmers themselves. That their culture and tools wew wholly inadequate to the task was less relevant than that they were the only available candidates for the job. … [also] the difficult challenge of designing interaction appealed to them, and they invested considerable effort. This gave rise to the sardonic joke in the industry that says ‘Design is what programmers do in the 20 minutes before they begin coding.'”<\/p>\n
pag. 210
\n– Focus Groups (…) the biggest problem is simply that most people, even professional software users, are ignorant of what software is and what it can and cannot do. So when a focus group participant asks for a feature, the request is made from a shortsighted point of view. The user is asking for what he or she thinks is likely, possible, and reasonable. To consciously ask for something unlikely, impossible, or unreasonable would be to voluntarily seem stupid, and people don’t willingly do that.”<\/p>\n
pag. 213
\n– Iteration. It is a commonly accepted truth about software development that the way to get good interaction is to iterate. (…) And, yes, iteration is an important element of good design: Keep working on it until it’s right. However, many product developers have interpreted this to mean that you can dispense with design and merely iterate across random thrusts in the dark.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chapter 11 – Designing for People – pag. 181 “If a user performs a task frequently, it’s interaction must be well crafted. Likewise, if a task is necessary but performed inferquently, it’s interaction, although design with different objectives, must be well design. Tasks that are neither necessary nor frequent simply don’t require carefull design.” – […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[32,56,363],"class_list":["post-479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ler-ver-ouvir-passear","tag-alan-cooper","tag-apontamentos","tag-ler"],"yoast_head":"\n