Subject: Okay, here it goes
I think you make a vital and very valid point - it IS much easier to churn out bland, template-driven sites that accurately reproduce, but don't extend or give life to, brand guidelines. Most of us have at some point or another - and will no doubt continue to do so in the name of 'responsibility'. But I think my point (yes, I have one) is that while I agree with you on a superficial level, I think that to lay the blame at 'consistency's' door is a bit unfair - it goes deeper than that. I think there's still a fundamental flaw in people's attitudes towards the web, the practicalities/'limitations' of the medium and, most importantly, the role it plays in extending and invigorating their brand.That's why 'cost-effectiveness' (i.e. template-driven) still wins out over 'brand experience' in most cases.
From: MISHX
Send a comment 
Subject:
I hear you loud and clear. Consistency has been promoted way above its
station. So much so, it's become synonymous with creating good user
experience (UX). Consistency isn't a panacea for all UX problems it is one
of a myriad of tools and devices that designers use to create great
interfaces.
What we need to do is ensure that clients (and colleagues) understand that
UX is complex and multivariate. It's not a "thing" that we plug into a
design; it's a process that needs to be examined holistically.
Good UX design relies on taking a user-centric approach. But before we
plough all our cash into the ultimate experiential website, we have to
appreciate that there are other competing (business and technological)
agendas. In an ideal world, being "on-brand" should be a win-win situation
for all stakeholders. In reality, we can only hope for "optimal".
UX design is hard to do. That's why it's fun. The practice of true
user-centricity is rare. We need to change this; we need shatter the
"illusion of consistency".
Viva la revolucion!
From: nowherefast
Send a comment
Subject:
Consistency defined:
[n] harmonious uniformity or agreement among things or parts
[n] (logic ) an attribute of a logical system that is so constituted that
none of the propositions deducible from the axioms contradict one another
[n] the property of holding together and retaining its shape; "when the
dough has enough consistency it is ready to bake"
[n] logical coherence and accordance with the facts; "rambling argument
that lacked any consistency "
Excuse me for being pedantic about semantics, but I cannot help myself.
Consistency is not about being the same. It is about being part of a whole.
and these are fundamentally different concepts.
Being consistent does not mean that all interactions should look and behave
in the same way, it means that they should feel like they belong to the same
family.
I watched "Other people's houses" last night where they showed a house where
different architectural styles had been applied throughout the rooms. Each
style was vastly different from the others, but all were sumptuous in their
outrageousness. The experience of viewing this house was consistent but it
was not boring. Consistency does not preclude a boring user experience.
Consistency can enable users, especially where content is complex. Here it
can simplify, making the inaccessible accessible and promoting ease of use.
Consistency has it's place, it's context and it should not be disregarded
nor viewed in a vacumn.
From: Alice
Send a comment
|
Back to the article
Send a comment
|
