Tweet
OK I have noticed that about 50% of user questions seem to pertain to some aspect of visual control so I thought I would open a discussion on the topic. My old carcass has been dragged through the mud of the visual control corral by an ornary bull or two and I have some insights to share.
I guess the thrust of my point is that time has taught me that it isn't essential to try and control every single aspect of the user's view, but rather to make sure that your content is compelling.
Full screen applications for example are in fact possibly less effective than standard ones, after all if full screen software was more effective wouldn't at least one major software company be deploying their stuff that way? (None do) It is actually much better to give your users standard windows which can be resized, minimized, and restored in the same old familiar way as the rest of their software. The less energy the user has to spend becoming familiar with how your project works, the more energy they put into parsing the content itself.
Then there's the "But I want my video to take up the whole screen..." issue. Again, time has shown me that deploying content in the manner which is most familiar to the end user is usually the most effective method in terms of getting your message heard. In this case Media Player works well. And again, if full screen video presentations were more effective don't you think at least one major company would be deploying their video that way (None do. Apple, Macromedia, Adobe, etc. they all deploy their sales and training videos in a window or a standalone player)
I could go on and on but the message is this. If you don't see any major league players doing things the way you planned, take a step back and examine their methods, you might find some good ideas. No one likes a control freak and users generally prefer that their familiar control methods stay intact, after all, don't you too? How do you like it when an application "takes over" your screen? Imagine a TV show which temporarily de-activates your remote control, do you think users might fixate on that and miss the point of the show?
Besides, it takes about half the time to do things this way, and your work becomes more extensible since it isn't tied into some unorthodox deployment scheme... It's also a lot more fun and less stressful.
Don't forget, as designers, we only have one goal, to communicate our core message to the end user. Any and all other details are completely irrelevant to what we do.
Put it this way, if you get worried about details which your users don't notice, you're might be missing the forest for the trees...
In my opinion it is no coincidence that all the major software and e-learning manufacturers on earth seem to use uncannily similar methods to deploy their stuff at any given time. Nothing wrong with emulating a genius, it's a great way to learn.
And, at the end of the day, relax. If your content is compelling your audience will be riveted to their seats. besides, if it isn't compelling no amount of contextual presentation fandango is going to help anyhow...
Corey Milner
Creative Director, Indigo Rose Software
I guess the thrust of my point is that time has taught me that it isn't essential to try and control every single aspect of the user's view, but rather to make sure that your content is compelling.
Full screen applications for example are in fact possibly less effective than standard ones, after all if full screen software was more effective wouldn't at least one major software company be deploying their stuff that way? (None do) It is actually much better to give your users standard windows which can be resized, minimized, and restored in the same old familiar way as the rest of their software. The less energy the user has to spend becoming familiar with how your project works, the more energy they put into parsing the content itself.
Then there's the "But I want my video to take up the whole screen..." issue. Again, time has shown me that deploying content in the manner which is most familiar to the end user is usually the most effective method in terms of getting your message heard. In this case Media Player works well. And again, if full screen video presentations were more effective don't you think at least one major company would be deploying their video that way (None do. Apple, Macromedia, Adobe, etc. they all deploy their sales and training videos in a window or a standalone player)
I could go on and on but the message is this. If you don't see any major league players doing things the way you planned, take a step back and examine their methods, you might find some good ideas. No one likes a control freak and users generally prefer that their familiar control methods stay intact, after all, don't you too? How do you like it when an application "takes over" your screen? Imagine a TV show which temporarily de-activates your remote control, do you think users might fixate on that and miss the point of the show?
Besides, it takes about half the time to do things this way, and your work becomes more extensible since it isn't tied into some unorthodox deployment scheme... It's also a lot more fun and less stressful.
Don't forget, as designers, we only have one goal, to communicate our core message to the end user. Any and all other details are completely irrelevant to what we do.
Put it this way, if you get worried about details which your users don't notice, you're might be missing the forest for the trees...
In my opinion it is no coincidence that all the major software and e-learning manufacturers on earth seem to use uncannily similar methods to deploy their stuff at any given time. Nothing wrong with emulating a genius, it's a great way to learn.
And, at the end of the day, relax. If your content is compelling your audience will be riveted to their seats. besides, if it isn't compelling no amount of contextual presentation fandango is going to help anyhow...
Corey Milner
Creative Director, Indigo Rose Software
Comment