Deeper hierarchy give the illusion of simplicity while actually being more complex whereas a flat hierarchy may seem crowded but ultimately it is easier to navigate through. personally i think flat hierarchy should be the standard with deep hierarchy being reserved only for websites where the depth is inevitable. but ultimately it depends on your audience. if your audience is specialized and knowledgeable on your website (one example would be adobe users) a deep hierarchy would be better for such users) however if your audience is a more general broader audience (example would be people using a government website) its best to keep your hierarchies relatively flat and easy to navigate.

As UX designers, it’s often smarter to make the executive decisions for our users and build a unified experience, rather than trying to satisfy too many different niches on a single site. A general website that works well for the majority is much more effective than a hyper-specific one with no clear focus. Just like we use different physical tools for different tasks, distinct audiences are often better served by entirely different websites altogether.

I agree with the author. i heavily doubt that air gestures will replace existing interaction because most people like to have something tangible in their hand. they want an accurate visual anchor does their anchor like a cursor or a finger tip.

I like Jobs emphasis on user experience, this idea that any successful business must first and foremost look to the user before even beginning to think about the product. Theres no point in having advanced technology if it is inaccessible to the user!

This entire video was interesting, it was a more holistic view on user experience rather than a focus on digital user design. while much of the video spoke on physical design it is interesting to think about how this could apply to the digital world, especially when thinking about accessibility. perhaps one of the most prominent examples i can think of regarding accessibility in the digital word, is the rule to minimize text in images in many digital applications. its somethings small but it may have large impacts for minorities with disabilities by ensuring things like screen readers are always available.

what are some example of accessibility in real life you can think of? what about some examples from the digital world?

any neglected accessibility you can think of? in other words are there any disabilities that are often overlooked by many modern designers?

everyone is a designer? agree or disagree ? is this a good or bad thing?

little changes can have big impact.

accessibility in design can often be life changing (ex. traffic light and colorblindness) -> designing for people with extreme deficits, everyone benefits.

--> design should be accessible always.

more people have been liberated through information technology than anything else.

quadruple bottom line

digital divide : Movie theaters --> home Television --> Laptop --> phone<br /> gaining more autonomy over technology.

Its interesting how I've seen this pattern of nudging everywhere from actual games, online shopping stores and even in person shopping. I've seen it especially in stores where they'll have a buy one get one half of where even the cashier will nudge you to get a another item to retrieve the sale or even in online shopping where it'll nudge you to buy another item just to get free shipping. ultimately they result in you spending more money on something you dont need.

I wonder if this had any serious legal repercussions or if companies are just getting away with it! especially the Facebook one, it makes you realize many of us arent as educated as we need to be regarding rules surrounding our data privacy.

hi.