I suggest that designers (or future students) should explore different forms of coping within a
metaphor, rather than getting stuck in a single type of interaction.
main points of my argument:
1- nuanced coping and interaction feel,
For me, the way designer interacted with the artifact (my sketches) felt the same across
different sketches. Pressing and holding had the same feel, even if the visual or metaphor
changed. This similarity limits exploration because the way designer interact doesn’t change,
leading to a similar experience every time.
thinking through doing,
As a designer, I think by doing (Djajadiningrat), and engaging with the interaction. This is
how I identify that there is something missing. I am coping the same as the previous sketches.
How do I identify what is missing in the relationship between metaphor and input/output?
Identifying Gaps
2- exploring input and output relationships beyond visual metaphors,
I want to say that input and output should develop together, not stay the same. By paying
attention to inputs like pressing, holding, and releasing feel and affect the output, designers
can create more nuanced variations in user experience.
3- coffee machine example (from Linz)
This example shows why different ways of coping mechanisms. Both methods button
pressing VS manual pressing/ make coffee, but they feel different for the user. the physical
engagement differs, changing how the user copes with the interaction. This difference in
action demand (direct manipulation in Heyer terms)
showing that even with similar outputs, inputs can create special experiences.
Literature support:
1- Designing for Coping
2- Lenz et al.
3- Djajadiningrat,