Application Envisioning idea
L3.

Knowledge work domains have visual cultures of iconic designs and related products that have evolved over time. Product teams can leverage those familiar cultural understandings to give their onscreen elements intangible, or outright meaningful, family resemblances with known artifacts.

Examples from three knowledge work domains:
(Illustrated above) A scientist feels that the look of her new analysis application “fits into” her clinical research work. It has a white, color coded, clearly labeled feel that reminds her of the simple and informative labels on her lab’s reagent containers and packages.
An architect sees a visual resemblance between the elements in her building modeling application and offline tools found on a drafting table. For example, the application’s semi-transparent menus are the same milky color as the old, semi-transparent protractors in her desk drawer.
A financial trader has noticed that a number of key trading applications are starting to look more and more like a startup firm’s market information application, which has had an industry leading influence on design. The style somehow looks very “finance” to him, in a good way.
Knowledge work professions can have rich visual histories of iconic artifacts that have become emotionally symbolic of their work culture (A1, K1, F, J6). Given that workers often interpret new tools from the vantage points of known artifacts and existing approaches (C1), targeted references to earlier visual forms can summon useful, pleasing, and comfortable associations.
Product teams can intentionally situate their interactive applications within targeted cultural contexts by envisioning diverse design approaches that directly display,
or indirectly evoke, affinities with established domain artifacts.
Although teams may find it difficult to incorporate iconic resemblances at the level of an entire application (C2), clearer opportunities may present themselves at the level of individual functions (C3) or interaction objects (B1). These references can be envisioned within an application’s top down brand approach to ensure that individual cues are part of a larger, cohesive, aesthetic (L).
When product teams do not actively consider how iconic design resemblances could be incorporated within their application concepts, opportunities to make intentional use of workers’ existing artifactual literacies can be lost. Without these cues, resulting applications may feel more generic to their targeted audiences. Individual users may find it more difficult to apply their specific cultural understandings to such products (D2, K2, K6), making it more difficult for them to recognize that these tools are intended
for their own work practices (K3).
Conversely, some iconic references do not translate well into a contemporary interactive application (A3, F2). Workers may associate certain artifactual cues, such as dominant and literal metaphors, with ways of working that are no longer relevant to them or generally not conducive to being enacted on a computer screen.
See also: A, B3, K5, M

Application Envisioning questions:
What iconic artifacts are part of the visual and material culture of targeted knowledge workers’ day to day professional environments? How might your sketched functionality concepts and interaction objects subtly or directly reference these artifacts in ways that are both compelling and evocative?
More specific questions for product teams to consider:
What iconic designs and products do targeted individuals find especially interesting and meaningful? Which workplace artifacts do they not feel an affinity for?
What historical designs in targeted cultures of practice are still iconic, even if they are not currently used?
What do workers attribute to those iconic artifacts that they value? What have these objects come to mean? What emotional connections do they hold?
Which features of certain iconic artifacts stand out to knowledge workers?
How might your team meaningfully incorporate chosen aspects of iconic designs into your application concepts?
Are there any opportunities to draw sweeping parallels between your envisioned product and an existing, iconic product? What impact might those iconic parallels have on your application’s strategic direction?
Which references to iconic artifacts could be appropriate for your product’s emerging brand? What impact might these references have on brand attributions?
What smaller resemblances to iconic designs could be valuable in your sketched functional areas?
How might iconic references lead to inappropriate interpretations of your product’s role and functioning? Where might more generic design approaches be appropriate for what your team is attempting to accomplish?
How might certain iconic cues relate to larger user interface conventions within your sketched application concepts? Which references could potentially provide value as part of your team’s reusable interface patterns?
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
|