User Experience Design ...heard of it?

[Scriptage]

Google maps didn't happen because of Google programmers understanding of Ajax.

This sentence does not make sense.

Plenty of questionable stuff has and will be done with Ajax

I agree.

...usually because people confuse tools with what Google does understand.

This does not make sense.

What google understands is user interaction design. That is not not to say Google didn't put the available tools to good use. All ajax does is provide one way of reducing reloads, that does not guarantee a good user experience - as a lot of Flash developers have learned.

Of course reducing reloads does not guarantee a good user experience but who can deny the benefit of this in web applications such as Google Maps? Without the use of AJAX the application would be hard to use and the user experience soiled.

The reason Flash is 99% Bad is in large part confusing what the designer experience with the user experience. ...That and the unfortunate tendency to confuse religion with technology.

No the reason that Flash is 99% bad is the fact that you have to have the Flash Player installed to view the web page; this is an accessibility nightmare and bad business logic. Flash provides a medium for the creativity of the designer to be expressed, which is why Flash is perfect for artist's portfolios, graphic designers etc and bad for heavily text driven websites.

Finally, web 1.0 was a horrible kludge. Making it the least little bit less awful is not good experience design, it's more like not hitting your foot with a hammer. And not hitting your foot with a hammer does not in any way, shape or form make you a good carpenter.

Just like using Ajax does not confer instant User Experience Designer status upon the developer.

There's a lot of things that can be done with AJAX that CAN and DO improve the user experience like Yahoo!'s auto complete and of course these things are implemented with the end users experience in mind, so using things like AJAX does make you a "User Experience Designer" but how well you implement the features decides how good a "USer Experience Designer" you are.

Ajax is to User Experience what not hitting you in the foot with a hammer is to carpentry. Ajax is what Hamburger Helper is to hamburger.

This statement is entirely incorrect, by dismissing the power of AJAX and what it has to offer the world of UX Design (I shudder saying that) you are truely naive.

Regards

Carl

[D856C]

No the reason that Flash is 99% bad is the fact that you have to have the Flash Player installed to view the web page; this is an accessibility nightmare and bad business logic.

I'm glad you no longer have to download Java runtime or have java enabled. When did Ajax cause this to happen? (Just FYI, Java 7 is coming up; and I was going to download it ...but maybe I no longer have to).

I don't dismiss the utility of Ajax. However lots of people had little problem with mapquest and yahoo maps before Google maps.

so using things like AJAX does make you a "User Experience Designer"

Using this reasoning HTML, CSS, C#, Word or paper and ink make anyone a user experience designer. And anyone who can lift a hammer and pound a nail must be a carpenter. Or possibly an architect. ... But most certainly a user experience designer.

Ajax can be a valuable component to a user experience. But so can a lot of other things ...apparently.

Related:

Explaining User Experience didn't get the Ajax memo. While listed, Ajax is far from the entirety or central to the constellation of factors making for UX design. Much like a carpenter whose only tool is a hammer probably isn't a carpenter.

[Scriptage]

I don't dismiss the utility of Ajax. However lots of people had little problem with mapquest and yahoo maps before Google maps.

Yes but Google Maps is better.

Using this reasoning HTML, CSS, C#, Word or paper and ink make anyone a user experience designer. And anyone who can lift a hammer and pound a nail must be a carpenter. Or possibly an architect. ... But most certainly a user experience designer.

AskOxford: carpenter The dictionary definition of a carpenter is: a person who makes wooden objects and structures.

If I make wooden structures I am by definition a carpenter, how good a carpenter I am depends on how good my structures are. Please don't argue with me about English, I've been speaking it for 21 years and I'm quite good.

[D856C]

What I'm debating is whether Ajax is the wood or the nail. It certainly isn't the only component making up a wooden structure, although I'm not dismissing all wood construction with dowels and glue.

Don't want to get carpenters all hot and bothered now.

* Managing the Project
* Defining the Problem
* Designing the Experience
* Architecting the Technology
* Delivering the Experience
-- From Explaining User Experience

Keep in mind this was about UX. Not that the Ajax Liberation Front isn't welcome to do a workshop. Just get in line behind the Flashers.

A better design discussion is what is the relationship between construction and design.

This would be a good time to talk about the design maturity ladder.

Stage One: Design by default. Construction and the implementation model determines design. "It's not a bug, it's a feature." User not required.

Stage Two: Design as Styling. Design is separate from and largely irrelevant to construction -- a final step of superficial decoration. "We need to get a logo and choose colors ...we launch next week."

Stage Three: Design as Process. Brought in at the earliest stages design determines construction. Technologies must earn their place based on what they bring to the user. Users aren't adapted to the technology, technology is adapted to the user. "RTFM not required."

Stage Four: Design as Innovation. Key strategic driver of technical and business decisions, redefines business problems. Good Designers Redesign, Great Designers Realign. While construction is about separating style, structure, tactics, strategy, and everything from everything else, design strategy reintegrates components and connects them. "Blood spatter grunge surgery center not required"

Further design means the better user experience might mean a phone call, followed by an email, supported by a physical piece of paper from a "Information Rx Pad" written by the doctor of the surgery center. Not must have technologies, with humans optional.

[Scriptage]

What I'm debating is whether Ajax is the wood or the nail. It certainly isn't the only component making up a wooden structure, although I'm not dismissing all wood construction with dowels and glue.

Don't want to get carpenters all hot and bothered now.

Can we please stop talking in metaphors? It's like trying to decipher Jokerman.

[D856C]

So Dylan is a bad UX designer?

Three User Experience Guidelines for Ajax Sliders is a nice programmer friendly discussion of UX design.

Instead of the one implementation and single minded discussion of the code, this tutorial (unlike others) is a UX tutorial that happens to be about Ajax. It sidesteps the pointless discussion "Google is better."

Ajax or Flash? Strange, this article seems to talk about the unmentionable word. Dylan fans may like it.

[Liliya]

I bet you two are a barrel of laughs at a dinner party!

[Scriptage]

So Dylan is a bad UX designer?

Ajax or Flash? Strange, this article seems to talk about the unmentionable word.

That Great Big Sexy Mistake: 5 Reasons Not To Use Flash « Cool Rules Pronto

It sidesteps the pointless discussion "Google is better."

If it is better, how is this a pointless discussion?

Three User Experience Guidelines for Ajax Sliders is a nice programmer friendly discussion of UX design.

Instead of the one implementation and single minded discussion of the code, this tutorial (unlike others) is a UX tutorial that happens to be about Ajax.

The site won't load so I cannot comment on the article.

I bet you two are a barrel of laughs at a dinner party!

Life and Soul :drunk2:.

[D856C]

Sounds like you are dismissing Flash now.

Next, most of the same charges have been leveled against Java (JRE is a download, some nonzero percentage of surfers have javascript disabled), right down to

If users create a bookmark in their browser they may not get the same view back when they follow the bookmark at a later date since the bookmark doesn't include a representation of the state of the content on the page.

Even worse, URLs stop working: the addressing information shown at the top of the browser no longer constitutes a complete specification of the information shown in the window.
-- Why Ajax Sucks (Most of the Time)

Given they're both flawed, is your position one is in some way less flawed than others? Most of the drawbacks, including bookmarking, can be addressed in programming -- if you're focussing on the UX and not who's tool is cooler or better or other pseudo religious arguement.

Or would you prefer to talk about User Experience without either, suboptimal, Tool?

Because I know you realize this is not a fanboy thread for PC versus Mac versus Linux kind of advocacy. Because then I'm going to refer back to the carpenter tools metaphors, and nobody wants that. ....Not to mention the metaphor breaks down, as arguing tools is yet another lame distraction people who refuse to talk about the user experience will use.

I'd hazard a guess carpenters have few hammers are better than screwdrivers arguments.

You do raise a good point. Which is how important is it that the web site show up in a browser? Both Ajax and Flash have problems, and they are both partially addressable. For instance, with the proper programming techniques, Flash can be bookmarked. And both Ajax or Flash can "gracefully degrade" using progressive layout techniques.

So yes, it's extremely important for the site to show up in the browser. The only way this wouldn't go without saying is when you're trying to derail the discussion. Or the web is so immature a technology and development so primitive, basic minimum operation monopolizes the development team's time to such extent no higher level design discussions matter.

For the purpose of this thread, I'd prefer a couple of assumptions. First, each "TOOL" is important, given its due respect and recognition, and acknowledged as "cool." But, like any tool, those advocates acknowledge certain advantages and disadvantages in order to move on to more interesting discussion.

A useful fiction is to pretend the development team can get whatever they use to load in the majority of browsers and move on to what happens after the site loads. This does reinforce the notion to not use one tool as the be-all end-all. If Flash doesn't load, or Java is turned off, the user experience should still be compelling enough to succeed without them.

So I guess the point must be not to get hung up on Flash or Ajax. Good point.

What this has to do in UX terms is meet the user's bare minimum expectations. Hygenic factors in UX design mean the user expects the site to load, but you get no UX bonus points. Motivational factors gain those bonus points, and it behooves a designer (but apparently not programmers) to distinguish between hygenic and motivational factors.

Related:

SXSW: Chatting About Google's User Experience

Are there any elements of modern Web design that drive you crazy?

Irene Au, the Director of User Experience for Google, "Gratuitous use of Flash and Ajax. The experiences of the web today are so much more rich and interactive, and when people are developing websites sometimes the technology can interfere with the user's experience and flow. And there are pitfalls like when it takes forever to load some big flash module."

Google's Director of User Experience seems to get the point. Not being an advocate for Ajax or Flash might be a fair general first step for advocating for the user over the programmer's tools.

[Scriptage]

Sounds like you are dismissing Flash now.

I only dismiss Flash as a stand alone for websites as it's bad for accessibility, bad for text driven sites and therefore bad for business.

Given they're both flawed, is your position one is in some way less flawed than others?

Yes. You do not need to download anything to run an AJAX application, Flash is CPU intensive and therefore renders jerkily on older machines (I know this because I sometimes have to use older machines), bookmarking in AJAX can be done using the query string and window.location, AJAX can be applied as a transparent layer above the (X)HTML that alters the functionality of the existing application, Flash cannot (it needs an entirely new application) etc.

Accessibility should not be sacrificed for "user experience" as a stand alone Flash website does; I must reiterate that Flash is perfectly acceptable as long as an alternative is provided; the same goes for AJAX, it is acceptable as long as the application does not rely on it (it adds additional functionality to those able to use it).

Regards

Carl