Contribute to the Misdesign Collection
It's fun to ridicule an inferior design and it's worthwile to sum up the reasons why it's inferior!
What’s in it for you?
- We give your misDesign entry maximum exposure: Your entry will be featured:
- on the front page of Interaction-Design.org (currently over 97433 unique visitors a month)
- on the misDesign notification mailing list (currently over 1689 members)
- in the RSS news feeds (currently app. 1178 daily update requests)
- Your misDesign entry and your author page will receive a substantial amount of the site’s visitors, as misDesigns have a broad appeal. This will make many people aware of your research.
- Your misDesign entry may be properly cited by visitors through the "How to cite" link
- Because of the Creative Commons approach to copyright, you retain your copyright but allow people to copy and distribute your work provided they give you credit. This ensures dissemination of your entry throughout the community, giving it further exposure. It also allows you to republish your work elsewhere.
Interested? Here is how you do...
- Write up a misDesign, based on the template/definition below!
- Email us your work at reviewers@interaction-design.org (e.g. in a MS Word document). Your misDesign will reviewed by one of our editors, and he/she may help you improve it or change certain parts before publication.
- Your work is published. Congratulations!
The template/definition: Here's what a misDesign should include
Heading: A ‘catchy’ heading
Subheading: Briefly summarize the main point in a ‘catchy’ way
What’s misdesigned?
Briefly describe:
- What’s the name of the product/webpage/etc and what does it do?
- How did the problem/misDesign reveal itself. In other words, “how did you get there”
- Why is it misdesigned? Briefly explain why the design is incomprehensible/wrong/annoying/time-consuming/disrespectful… or the like
It would be as if…
Give a real-world analogy of what this problem would be like in “the real world”. A real-world analogy will often make us appreciate how bizarre the world of software and electronic products can be. It may teach readers not to think “I’m not technically savvy enough” but instead “That’s misdesigned! That could be better! I’m not the stupid one!”.
For example, the workings of a physical store can be compared to how a website handles its online customers. Other examples of real-world situations which can be used are: Visit at a restaurant, at a certain type of store, interaction with friends, your bike, your car, your doctor, etc… Make the analogy to something that most people understand.
How to fix this problem?
This section takes a constructive approach to the problem. It’s important that we don’t just list problems but also show how to fix them. You can do this by:
- showing an example of how another design has done a better job (e.g. a screen shot and an explanation)
- or otherwise explaining how the existing design could be improved or fixed, preferably by visual and not only textual means.
Other examples
In this optional paragraph, you may list products, which have been misdesigned in a similar fashion. Include a photo/screenshot and the like.
Research themes surrounding this problem…
This section should list which (research) themes are relevant to understanding the mechanisms behind this misdesign. It should provide the reader with some themes or “keywords” to use for further investigation.
This section should also include links into the interaction-design.org bibliography, e.g. links to specific authors who deal with this particular subject, links to searches, links to relevant conferences, etc. The point is to tie research themes (hard to understand, narrow audience) to misDesigns (easy to understand, wide audience). A misDesign becomes a path into research. It’s part of our quest to make research accessible!
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to make contact.
What do YOU think?
Give us your opinion! Do you have any comments/additions
that you would like other visitors to see?
Ref Deskonikov (refdesk(at)kichimail(dot)com) says:
Dec 17th, 2008
A man walking upon a deserted beach comes across a pocket watch in the sand. "It's a beautiful watch," the man says to himself. And it works, so it is obviously the creation of an intelligent being, so that "being" must exist."
And the watch thinks, "It's a pity such stupid creatures can reproduce."
Changes to this page
12 Jun 2008: Page was edited10 Jun 2008: Page was edited
10 Jun 2008: Page was edited
10 Jun 2008: Page was edited
Open Content
