I liked Meadows' principles of interactivity the first time I read them, but enjoyed them even more this week, now that I am further along in developing the plan for my own site.
Input/Output
In the most basic terms, this principle is at play from the moment a user opens a website. Typing in a URL (input) opens the site's home page (output). From there, even on the most basic site, the user is presented with additional opportunities for input--even if those options are simple hypertext links to other pages. On more sophisticated sites, the opportunities for input grow more sophisticated; the user can click on a thumbnail image to see a larger view; mouse over a menu button for an explanation of where the button leads; launch a video or audio track; choose an avatar; or log in to access locked content. Any one of these input actions, plus who knows how many others, meet the criteria outlined by Meadows: 1) the user can tell what change he or she is affecting; and 2) the user can control the input.
A couple of other points Meadows makes about input and output are that the interactivity cycle's ability to add information is what defines its quality AND that the input should facilitate new input. These are key points, I think, for good design. We've probably all seen sites with interactive features that really seemed to serve no purpose other than sparkle -- e.g., images that spin, flip or glow when moused over. As I work on my own site and the artist site redesign, it will be important for me to remember that any interactivity I include needs to lead the user further along the path toward immersion.
Inside/Outside
I must admit that I struggle a bit with this principle. If I am understanding it correctly, the most effective interactivity marries up the user's internal world with his or her external one. If so, then I can think of no better example of this that the MMORPGs (massively multiplayer online role playing games) that my kids spend so much time engaged in. I understand why that would be effective, but I don't quite know how to go about applying it.
Open/Closed
I'm assuming that the vast majority of sites on the web would fall into the closed category rather than the open. Gaming sites, auction sites, MMORPGs and social sites like Myspace and Facebook seem like the most obvious example of open systems, but another category might be the online dating services that use user-provided information to generate likely matches.
It also appears to me that many shopping sites have begun to integrate elements of indeterminancy as well. Specifically, I am thinking of Amazon's recommendations function, in which the site suggests books, music, etc. that the user might be interested in, based on his or her purchasing and browsing patterns (or, for those who take the time, the ratings they assign to books they have already read). Other shopping sites offer similar dynamic features: deals of the day, lists of top selling items, and notes telling you that "shoppers who bought this item also bought _______" or Perhaps I am naive or gullible, but I actually pay attention to all those things!
Because open systems are so complicated, I don't know how to incorporate this principle into my own sites. The only way I can imagine doing so would be to include a blog, which could theoretically spur the indeterminancy of user feedback and dialogue.
I also struggled with relating these concepts to my projects. I'm not sure my explanations are correct on my blog! I did try though. Initially, I thought I was overcomplicating the concepts, but I think I oversimplified them in my blog post. It does seem like they are high level, and I could not think of any high level examples from my sites.
ReplyDelete-Ashley O.
Great comment on sparkly things. For all the bells and whistles you create if your site doesn't provide the information that the viewer seeks in an easy-to-get format, it is completely worthless. I will keep that in mind as I move forward with both projects.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I correctly applied the four principles to my project, but I gave it a good try. If I had more skills, time or resources, I could probably make both sites way more interactive than they will actually be, but I don't, so "openess" may have to be sacrificed for practical reasons.
Two things that you mentioned really caught me eye. First, in your discussion of Input/Output, that there can be various levels of this principle. And secondly, your note that any interactivity should not be for mere sparkle but included with a purpose. I agree with both statements. In terms of some of your concern as to how to integrate the last two principles into your own website, might it help to think of Inside/Outside and Open/Closed in the same way you presented Input/Output - as operating on a continuum? Yes, MMORPGs are highly immersive and thus fully marry the reader's internal state to their external experience, but you can still have elements of this without going this far. Asking questions about your audience such as who they are, what expectations do they have of the site, what are they looking for, what will they want to invest their time in, do they hold any preconceptions about the subject of your site would be one way to drill into their internal state and then compose and design accordingly.
ReplyDeleteShawna, your idea of the open/closed system being enacted through shopping networks fascinates me. I'd not thought of that system, but I think you presented a creative and accurate example there!
ReplyDeleteShawna,
ReplyDeleteNice elucidation of all the principles. I agree with you that the greatest challenge lies in being able to implement the three principles in our own projects. There are really thousand different ways in which this can be done. But most of us are somewhat limited when it comes to translating ideas into actual design elements. However, conceptualizing these principles in terms of levels is certainly a good way of dealing with this problem. It certainly takes off a lot of "performance anxiety" !