I really like this “evil” design exercise that Jared has documented on Ev’s blog.
I broke them up into small groups of three, spreading each role across separate groups. I then asked each person to grab a sheet of paper and make their own list of ways they imagined the product’s user experience could be made worse.
Two pieces of good news from Google:
A lovely outlook on designing with progressive enhancement:
There will always be users coming from places you didn’t expect, using devices you didn’t test for.
Jared explains how adding new features can end up hurting the user experience.
The Riegers are like emissaries from Planet Smart and we mere mortals are fortunate that they take the time to give us great articles like this.
Cennydd’s closing remarks from this year’s IA Summit. Huzzah!
Small interactions that serve no useful purpose but are nonetheless satisfying. "Design this interaction such that: It's “free,” i.e. having no significance to the task or content, It's discoverable in ordinary use of the product, It's quick and repeatable (Less than half a second.), It's pleasant"
Eric Reiss takes a stab at defining User Experience.
A good list of interface guidelines based on real world experience with a mobile phone, an music player and an operating system.
A wonderful source of data on user behaviour and perceived skill levels online.
Search on Upcoming is borked. Here's my explanation why. I criticize because I care.
Happy Cog redesigns Dictionary.com and its siblings.