(Illustrated above) An architect finds that there is an overall feel of consistency in the design of her new building modeling application, even though each area of the product seems carefully optimized to support different actions. Across the entire application, different tools and dialog boxes are presented in a predictable and clearly mapped manner that makes them easy to interpret and use.

A scientist discovers that there are two distinct ways, within the same overall interface, that her new analysis application allows her to act. Common, standard analysis methods are supported by highly directive, step by step screens, while less predictable analyses are supported by a series of flexible workspaces devoted to particular approaches.

A financial trader knows that his trading application has different “categories” of screens. When he navigates to tools and options that he does not use very often, he recognizes smaller components that follow the same mold as screens that he uses repeatedly throughout his day.

What, if any, interaction patterns do targeted individuals expect to see when using computing tools in the work practices that your team is striving to mediate?

What patterns, at different levels of granularity, have become a standard part of how knowledge workers’ understand their computing tools?

What value do workers find in these known and expected patterns? What do they think of the conventions that they currently use?

What larger design and technology trends could influence your ideation about interaction patterns?

What advanced analogies to other types of products might your team draw upon when thinking about appropriate patterns?

What inherent consistencies are present within the scope of work practice you are targeting? Based on these consistencies, which of your envisioned functional areas could have strong similarities?

Within the particulars of your sketched functionalities, what smaller consistencies could become internal standards?

How might the reuse of interaction patterns in your application promote the transfer of workers’ learning in one interactive experience to other interactive experiences?

Where could the particulars of workers’ goals drive meaningful differentiation in interaction design responses, rather than patterned standardization?

When introducing new interaction patterns into workers’ practices, what analogies might your team make to known interactivity scenarios?

How might your ideas about your product’s larger conceptual and interaction models impact your interaction pattern choices?

How might the emerging language of patterns in your sketched application possibilities relate to, or even establish, the pattern language of a broader family of products in your firm?

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?