connecting*the*dots

What do you instantly think of when you read the word "fence?"

Unless you’re my friend Fleur (she’s a fan of the romantic sports), you probably lean towards the world of "things that stick in the ground and enclose other things" and you would be correct in thinking such, as fences do just that; they enclose, divide and protect areas and organisms for various purposes. Now, if we can agree to such a broad (yet particular) definition, we should be able to agree that fences define parameters of use, for if one can’t get past the fence, one can’t engage with anything outside (or inside) of its parameters.

So why am I fixated on the definition of a fence? Well, a good deal of tactical user experience design within authenticated environments is centered around the concept of defining parameters; as experiences that support specific goals rely on the thoughtful crafting of usage parameters. If that’s a vague concept, think about it in terms of designing site navigation behavior:

• Does the top/down navigation live in a consistent pane in the interface?
• If it’s located at the top of the screen, how does it behave?
• Does it expand onRollover or onClick?
• Does it display horizontally or vertically?
• Does it use rollovers for greater affordance?
• How does color and behavior reinforce the brand?
• Where is bottom/up exploration located?

Before we get too granular, let’s step back outside for a moment and think about how we might design the use of a fence in the real.

The placement of a fence’s corner posts could be determined based purely on property lines, or relative requirements based on the needs of the owner. The height of the fence, and its types of rails or wires, could be designed based on security requirements, or based purely on style. One thing is for sure; when these attributes are specified, usage parameters are in place and an experience is established. These specific choices define our cognitive perception of a fence that keeps sheep grazing within a field; a fence that protects property in the midst of urban renewal; a fence that surrounds a house at the end of a cul-de-sac.

Design is an iterative process, a constant remodeling based upon the objectives and desires of a business and user, and the perspective, and ultimately, the epiphany of the designer. But moving from good design to great design requires an effort of reduction to reach an elegant solution, where less is more and the complex takes form in simplistic presentation.

So the sheep are now grazing behind an elegant, rustic, utilitarian, wood fence. You’ve designed the perfect experience to meet the usage parameters of your client. Congratulations. But don’t pat yourself on the back for long. Your farmer client is now telling you that his sheep are going to be racing for cash on the property and that 25 other farmers are going to be using the property for similar, yet different purposes… and each are going to be equal owners, with equal say in decisions.

You now have 25 clients to please.

Parameters now seem passe, as each owner has slightly different needs and they’re starting to bicker. Your approach to good design (reduction and elegance), as applied to the original usage parameters, must now be redefined as well. So can you satisfy each of you client’s requirements with one static, structured, definition of a fence? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean design parameters go out the window.

An even more difficult challenge now lies on the horizon: How do you broker the creation of apropos usage parameters moving forward, through the creation of both useful and usable customization options? You need to meet their needs, but not by making "fences" too complicated or by coming in too close to their limited operating budget. How does one iterate the elegant reduction of the addition of customization?

Hmm… how indeed.