interactivity
Out of context: Reply #9
- Started
- Last post
- 23 Responses
- randoman0
I agree, interactivity is somewhat lst in its meaning.
I think interface or interfacing might be better to use. It is more clear on HOW you interact which is the question.
My thoughts are that the simpler something can be while maintaining functionality, the better.
Think of ways that you interface with the real world everyday. Things that u enjoy doing usualy carry a reward, in some cases the reward is the simplicity of completing the task.
More natural ways on iterfacing with technology and content, be it static, animated or other is where I would see things headed.
In sci-fi movies like Minority Report where they show users flailing about in order to navigate information always makes me cringe.. imo its a step back from even using a mouse (wont your arms get tired after a while?).
While the technology may not be there yet, something like retraining the mind to work as an extention or interface to computer would be the best (maybe picture having like more appendages that you could trigger with the same control as say making a fist or walking).
with the tools we have now, I think that keeping the navigation area confined to a smaller area (so the user doesnt have to fish all over the place to navigate) is a good idea.
Most people will work on Information Arcitecture not s much on Interface Architecture. What is the flow from one menu structure to another? How far will the user have to move the mouse form nav 1 to nav 2 to nav 3 and so on.