Much frustration involved in attempting this part. The only one I could get to work was the colour picker, which admittedly was a fun toy (and useful for them as are into proper design principles, I'm sure).
Montagr seems to be the most irritating device of all time - honestly who writes a piece of software then doesn't describe how to use it? I know that minimalist/'clean' interfaces are the way to go these days, but only if what it's styled around is so brainlessly easy to work first go that people like me (with minimal attention span) won't get frustrated and leave after the first three goes. I've been back a couple of times but I still havn't worked it out. I presume one needs to load a tag to source the 'pixel's of the montage, then load an image to apply the pixels to? All I can get is either the one image I specify, or the first image in the tag list to show.
An example of poor user interface design? I think so. Which is a shame, it would be great to be able to make these things (though I don't know when I would). Maybe I'll check out one of the other ones.
The Mappr wouldn't even load, so had a wee bit of difficulty trying that one out.
The colour picker was pretty fun, I just wish I had one back in the day, when I was designing my first pages *reminisce* not that the colour schemes dreamed up by an angsty teen during the height of grunge would be particularly original, but you never know.
The issues with Mappr and Montagr both raise the issue of technical barriers to 2.0 interfaces, those of site useability. It is of little use attempting to use an app that doesn't explain itself to those who don't understand; or that you can't actually get into in the first place however fancy it is. I found this to a lesser extent with FaceBook, the amount of time it takes to sign in to, and load the pages of can be rather annoying if all you want to do is perform a quick change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
great post. it really took me there!
Post a Comment