![]() It is the least familiar but it also has the least potential for breakdown, if you follow the rules of interacting with it. ![]() What I plotted on the far left is the terminal window, which was one of the first tools to allow a general user to communicate with the computer. For the purposes of this discussion, lets refer to the phenomenon of not meeting shared expectations as breakdownīreakdown was a term coined by Winograd and Flores, and indicates the shift of focus from the task-at-hand to the medium-at-hand. Imagine if every door was designed differently. In this way, not meeting shared expectations can drastically impact interaction. Shared expectations smoothen out interactions, improving task efficiency and performance, and reducing social incongruence. We even have shared expectations of how to send and respond to wedding invites. We have a shared expectation of how a door knob should function. We have a shared expectation of how a hammer should be used. We often encounter them under the guise of form & function, etiquette & manners, cultural & social norms, etc. Shared expectations exist for all sorts of technologies that involve interaction. For tools and services, we can use familiarity to indicate shared expectations. Following convention, on the x-axis we have human likeness, while on the y-axis we have familiarity. ![]() In order to apply the theory, we need to define what exactly it means for user interfaces to be uncanny, which in turn means we need to establish our axes. On the other hand, you run the risk of hitting the slippery slopes of the uncanny valley. On the one hand, anthropomorphizing (ascribing human qualities to inanimate objects) is key to making the shift from tool to service. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |