Filters

Our perception of a challenge, or of different types of designing, or of limitations makes all the difference in the world. I am not particularly fond of designing for web pages. That doesn't mean that I don't want to do it, or want to learn about it. In accordance with what was mentioned in the Filter article, I would be the idea candidate to figure out a simple and more functional way of designing with a visually pleasing result. That doesn't mean, however, that success is eminent.

How we decide to approach a design problem changes the outcome. The filters, the limitations, that we set for ourselves or are set for us, dictate the boundaries of our design, but not the success of it. Like the example of the 60 second movie bio of musicians. The more successful one was within the constraints of the limitations of bandwidth and loading time, but would perhaps be considered less creative. What good is creativity if it isn't applied properly or when it becomes a hindrance?!

Ultimately, filters, as the author defines them, are our friends.

Interactivity

In searching for some interactive, yet hopefully functional, websites, these came up:

http://www.hornallanderson.com
Very functional, yet a somewhat unique navigation system. Interactive and interesting, but not distracting or overdone.

http://www.2advanced.com
This was cool. Slightly video game-ish, but highly interactive and entertaining. It functions well, at least in regards to easy navigation, but in terms of doing a good job displaying their portfolio, they could do better.

http://www.freedomoftheseas.com
Almost a bit overdone. Very cool for someone looking to go on the cruise, but you get lost after a while while waiting for the buffering of your virtual tour host, for example.

Interaction

Buckley has created a common problem in web design. Not only is web design often approached with the obvious solution already in mind, but that solution isn't always the best. He talks about how web design should be interactive, engaging, and interesting, using scrollbars and unique menus while still maintaining usability.

In a way it seems to contradict some pieces of the usability article statements. Here Buckley, in creating more interest, has to try not to create a page that takes too long to figure out, or becomes something that takes too much thought. Is there a way to create an interesting web page without being so standardized and predictable? Maybe it just takes more thought on the designers' part, so that the user experience become more exciting. Like a horror show we keep coming back to, we know how it ends, but still love the thrill. Web design should be like that - but less scary.

Usability

The article presents some key facts in understanding how websites are used and what should be at the forefront of designers minds when when they are designing them. Not having more general rules besides "don't make me think" is fabulous. It sums up everything - don't have main points of interest be more than two clicks away; don't re-name things so they are unrecognizable; don't have buttons be so obscure that they cease to be buttons; etc.
It is helpful in understanding that users don't always look at everything, but do more scanning and skimming than anything. It is sort of a define your target destination, and find the quickest, most obvious route there. When designing a website, it is more clear after reading the article, how the audience should be targeted, what information should be most accessible, and how it should be navigated. Is the theory that people skim 100% accurate, probably not. There are people who look at a lot of the site content and others who have no problem assuming where buttons are. But for the majority, not making people think is probably the best way to go, and easier to design for anyway.

Concept & Audience

Personal preference.
Is there a right and a wrong way to go about the design process? Sure, there are good habits and bad, ways to be more efficient, more thorough, and more varied, but is there really a correct and incorrect?
The article makes some good points: in order to be successful designers, we have to be aware of our audience, client, and in turn, the concept. Our concepts can be derived from things like images, other websites, music, literature, packaging, friends, family, anything. What we do with the inspiration is our choice and it is necessary to remain consistent with our concept, client, and audience. If a designer doesn't relate with their audience, they become unsuccessful without research, as in the case with N'SYNC in this article.

Define "New Media"

"New Media" as a college degree may seem too broad or too narrow, but is it really the name of the program that signifies all it does? Is it really the title of something that contains all the ins and outs of the program dictating what is taught? Sure, the name should have some relevance, but what's the big deal?

There's two different kinds of web design in my mind. There is the visual layout, the pretty side. Then there's the structure, the underlying map. To combine the two gets tricky, as they mentioned in the AIGA article, but to separate them is trickier still. The visual side of web design is what I tend to think Graphic Designers do. The structure, coding, and mapping belong to the Programmers. It is hard, I think, to excel in both. Sure, one should know about the other, so as to do their jobs more completely. But there are two positions for a reason. Two jobs, two halves to a project, two sides of the brain.

I would think that in a business setting, there would be two different people performing the two side of the equation, not one who you hope can excel at both arenas. In a school setting, sure teach both, but perhaps separately. It is hard for designers, I think, to separate themselves from the "pretty" aspect and branch out into this mathematical coding world. And probably vice versa, but who knows.

And The Survey Says:

How interesting to read about all the developments within the design/web industry. Though it isn't documenting an actual change, this survey records to me some of the major distinguishing factors between today's media and that of the future.
What are the ratios between men and women in the web workplace going to be in a decade? Will men still be the majority, for instance?
The survey is in-depth and informative, but overall doesn't seem to prove a point other than serving to document statistics. Is there truly a point to the whole thing then?
I'm not sure.

As We May Think

The "memex" is truly an intriguing theory. Bush had a good grasp on the way the human brain relates to information. Finding a way to make storing and retrieving information actually useful, was almost too large a step for the time. Even today having the internet, this hard-copy version seems a bit unrealistic. But, who would have thought our cell phones could play music, access our e-mail, and function as a normal cell phone? Not to mention that a large percentage of people have their own personal phone and computer.
There are some definite similarities in functions between the internet of today and the hypothetical memex. Bush came up with methods of scrolling, bookmarking, tagging, and just generic searching, making all the information supremely accessible. He even had short-cut keys.
The idea that one could place all their own personal information on their memex is probably the largest difference. The internet is definitely a place where people can put information out for everybody else, but namely it is a place to access information that someone else has posted. The memex seemed more of a way to store ones' own ideas rather than view someone else's. The general population today, probably knows some basic things about putting information on the web, but the majority just use the search for the things they need on servers like Google.
It would be interesting to see where the internet world would have ended up if the memex had existed. Would we have the internet at all? Would we just have more elaborate versions of the memex? Would the internet be more available to the general population of people, being able to put up information merely by scanning it in?
Who knows...?

Unknown

Technology and Art
Two sisters ever changing
Ever growing
Though very different origins
The two are alike
Feeding off each other
Utilizing each other
Becoming each other
They represent sides of humanity
A black and a white
An expression
A language
A tool
A method of changing the world