Inaugural online book | Application Concepting Series No. 1



100 Ideas for Envisioning Powerful, Engaging, and Productive User Experiences in Knowledge Work

Download E-Book or Order Softcover Book



In addition to this website, Working through Screens
is available in several other formats:

    - Softcover print on demand books (NEW)

    - Free letter size .pdf (NEW)

    - Free large format .pdf

    - Free "Idea Cards" .pdf


View all Working through Screens Formats

Email List

Join our email list to receive updates about our publications:


Contact Our Consulting Studio

Contact Flashbulb Interaction to find out how we can help your team to better conceptualize and deliver your next application design.

E: info@FlashbulbInteraction.com
P: 206.280.3135

View Jacob Burghardt's profile on LinkedIn

Latest Studio Updates

From our FlashbulbUX Twitter feed:
  •  
Follow Flashbulb Interaction Studio Updates on Twitter



Feedback on Working through Screens?

Email us your thoughts or Twitter @FlashbulbUX

Application Envisioning idea
B8.
Explicit Mapping of Objects to Work Mediation



Even though a general understanding of an interaction object can carry with it expectations of certain related actions in a knowledge work application, product teams can prevent oversights and drive interaction clarity by explicitly mapping how important objects could fit into targeted operations, tasks, and larger activities.






Examples from three knowledge work domains:
(Illustrated above) A financial trader appreciates how his trading application gives him the shortest set of available action options when he looks at a trading message. He feels that these targeted options, which are based on each message’s current state, allow him to work faster, without second guessing what else he could be doing.

A scientist likes that the interface of her new analysis application provides a range of choices for exploring data at various levels of aggregation, including actions that used to be “missing” or “hidden” when she made certain selections within other visualization tools.

An architect becomes accustomed to the actions that are available to her in a new building modeling application. Even though it is an open workspace tool, with many options available for her to select at any given time, it feels like the functions that she ends up seeing first often correspond to what she is presently currently trying to accomplish.
Knowledge work applications are designed to support specific interactions, and they often do not have the plasticity to be applied outside of that range of intended use. Product teams can envision the narrative mapping (G1) between onscreen subjects and corresponding options for action as the intersection of specific types of interaction objects (B1), their current state (B5), the current state of the application (C10), and the work practices that an application is being designed to mediate (A).

A separate model of what workers will want or need to do with key interaction objects can provide product teams with a strong foundation for envisioning an application framework (C), including interaction pathways (C4), appropriate and consistent interaction patterns (C3, K6), support for collaboration (B7, C7, G4, J4), and support for explicit division of labor (J3, G5). Since a single object can be tied to drastically different tasks or larger activities (A5), teams can use an overall map of each object’s potential actions to envision tailored design responses that could match workers’ goals in each circumstance (A7, A8).

When product teams do not actively consider how important interaction objects might map to the breadth of work that they are striving to mediate with their application concepts, resulting tools may contain oversights in definition and design that make them difficult or impossible to use in some activity contexts (A6, D2, D3, D4). While these issues can often be addressed through iterative corrections, cohesive design of activity oriented wayfinding often involves something more than the sum of smaller, cumulative changes.

See also: B, F, G, H, J1, K, M




Application Envisioning questions:

How, specifically, could the interaction objects that your team has envisioned fit into the knowledge work operations, tasks, and larger activities that you are striving to mediate with your application concepts? What important relationships between objects and actions might you be overlooking?

More specific questions for product teams to consider:
How are certain artifacts currently used in different activity contexts? Are these usages consistent across targeted organizations?

How might your team map your emerging ideas about mediating knowledge work as the actions that can be performed on different types of interaction objects?

What potential actions could be most important for key object types? The least important?

Where could the nature of a particular action vary based on the type of interaction object that it is performed on? How might your sketched functionality concepts reflect these differences?

Which objects typically serve as tools for acting on other objects, rather than being the recipients of actions themselves?

How could the states of interaction objects, or larger application states, influence the actions that are available at a given time?

How might the sum of your team’s object and action mappings inform your ideation about application frameworks and interaction pathways?

Do you have enough information to usefully answer these and other envisioning questions? What additional research, problem space models, and design concepting could valuably inform your team’s application envisioning efforts?


< PREVIOUS PAGE  |  NEXT PAGE >



Back to top  |  View Table of Contents

All original contents of Working through Screens online book are subject to
the creative commons license (Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) unless otherwise noted.
Please attribute the work to “Jacob Burghardt / FLASHBULB INTERACTION Consultancy.”