Some insights on interactive design innovation: innovation or lack of improvement?

Everyone shouted innovation, I would like to challenge innovation, I am afraid will not be good to die. So, I'm not going to question, I want to ask:

Question one: What is innovation? What is different from the previous one is innovation?

Question two: How to create? No goal to try all kinds of changes, when a change has brought good results, fixed down, can be called "innovation"?

Next I want to focus on innovation in design. I really do not understand the other aspects. )

For design innovation, what can be paid attention to is often the form of expression, as for the process, information architecture, performance model of these innovations, is not easy to see, and is not easy to understand, although these for a product of greater value, but for the purpose of innovation for designers, or to engage in the form of innovation is more sensible.

So we're looking at the form of innovation (well, I'm smart too), and the form of innovation can be broadly summed up in the form of something that is different from the past and has a better effect.

This kind of understanding itself is very good, quite right. But because of this understanding, it led to some blind innovation. The mere pursuit of formal changes, such as:

Once the button was clicked, a small window flashed directly on the page. Innovation, after the click of the button, let this small window from the top of the page, turned out, from behind. In fact, this is nothing but an OS in an effect, but transplanted here at least can be a micro-innovation bar.

Is that a better effect? Maybe it looks more cool, but I'm afraid that's all.

Such a method of creation, itself lacks the direction, attempts each kind of change. The shooting in the dark was a waste of money. Can you be more purposeful? Because the concept of innovation has and only such an understanding, leading to such innovation is no way, then, there is no other understanding of the concept of innovation ...

Here is a little understanding of me ...

The existing knowledge inherits the mistakes of the past

Our current knowledge seems to be my own independent opinion, but it is clear that this understanding is based on a lot of background knowledge, which is the basis of past, other people's understanding, not necessarily all right. What is even more appalling is that, even with the background knowledge, my knowledge may not be my original point of view.

Which of the three segments on the right is as long as the standard segment on the left? It's obviously the 2nd, but what would you say if the first 10 answers were 3rd? The results are: 37% of the people from the public, believe the wrong views of others. Conformity means you really believe, not to be forced to answer the wrong answer, but to really make the wrong judgment. It's so wide and scary.

Design, there are a lot of similar, well, perhaps should not be called wrong, should be insufficient, not good enough to express the way. Lists, page jumps, form submissions, these basic objects are widely available in a product, and their existing forms may not be the best, but they have been used again and again.

Design and blindly pursue innovation, rather than the pursuit of correcting the shortcomings of the past, found a better way to express

Design is the expression, we use a series of expressions to convey a product to the user. Well, there has to be a best way of saying it, and all we have to do is find it.

Click on a link to open a new page, in the technology of the original era, open another page is a new page directly flashed out, and continues to this day. This form is not the best way to behave, too abstract. How does this link pull this page out? Where did the original page go? All of this needs to be understood by the user's abstract thinking. Now, in some technology more reliable environment, such a page jump can be more visualized, but most of the products are still in the most original jump mode-direct flash.

Path will make its three main page jumps more image, left and right push pull:

The left image is the main page, click on the top left corner of the three bars of the icon, the main page to the right to slide, the left side of the tabs column revealed. This tabs list is how to come, more image, the main page ran where, also more clear. Compared to the previous direct page jump, this performance form is better. After that, everyone followed suit.

A specific product, as a whole is a new thing, but it must contain a list, page jump, form submission ... These were previously available objects. The representations of these objects are inherited from the past.

If we can find that these objects in the form of deficiencies, under the current conditions, to achieve a better form of expression, it becomes innovation. Of course, the value is big enough.

The previous mentioned Click Button Pop-up Small window, flash out of the image is not the best expression, if so changed:

The small window is magnified by the position of the button. Where does this window come from, so the expression is more image. The purpose of this change is to pursue a better way of expressing and to allow the user to better understand the meaning we are trying to express.

As for whether this is an innovation, it's just a matter of doing the right thing, and it is not enough to qualify for a medal if outsiders evaluate how valuable the right thing is. Innovation is not an end, but an improvement is an end.

"Discovering the inadequacy of existing performance and finding a better way" can be said to be a further understanding of design innovation, or an alternative interpretation of the concept of innovation, or a critique of blind innovation. But I think it's not that important to understand how it relates to the concept of innovation, because the concept of innovation itself is too broad. I would like to emphasize that: in the design, more valuable things, is not good enough to express the way to improve, rather than blindly to create for innovation.

The above is my understanding of design innovation, as for other areas, technology development, business operation, marketing ... I do not understand, but perhaps there should be similar ideas, rational understanding is always more than two eyes and a smear of the way to rely on some.

Source Address: http://www.chouyu.com.cn/?p=397