Comments on OOUX: A Foundation for Interaction Design

8 Reader Comments

Back to the Article
  1. Thanks for this followup! Actions seemed like the necessary missing piece when I quickly tried this last year.
    How do you explain the difference between “content” and “metadata” when you are quickly teaching people these concepts? Some “core content,” it seems, is useful for sorting and filtering with…so would metadata just be anything more useful for sorting and filtering than for reading, viewing, and interacting with?

    Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
  2. Ah! So, it sounds like core content and metadata are both potentially useful for users, but metadata is whatever will need special treatment so that the system can digest it. Using your map example…if it was just core content, an image would probably suffice, but if users need to interact with it, the system will have to understand it, so we’ll need to have metadata about it.

    Hope I understood/explained that right. Your explanation helps a lot, though, so thanks!

    Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
  3. hi Sophia, thanks so much for sharing. I think this is the most powerful UX/product design methodology I’ve seen in my career, really remarkable work—congrats!

    It occurs to me that by extending the OOP analogy to actions (i.e. object type=class, attribute=instance variable, action=method), you’ve also paved the way for designing a more consistent UI for all the interactions in the product. The UI for a particular action like marking as favorite would ideally be similar whether you’re applying it to an ingredient, a recipe or a chef. Which, in OOP terms, is the idea of polymorphism—using a single interface for objects of different kinds. I think that’s one of the things that makes MacOS/iOS so elegant and intuitive, and you’ve made it an almost natural outcome of your method. Great stuff, look forward to seeing where you’ll take this next!

    Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
  4. Wow, great work! Thank you for sharing, really appreciate it.  It seems like actions are the most important part.

    Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
  5. This is great work!  In looking at some of the details, a few things struck me about how objects relate to each other and how they are classified or labeled.

    A few things in the metadata category look like straight up data:  price range, region, and level of difficulty, for example.  (Subjective, so no big deal.  Others have talked about the difficulty of making this determination.)

    Some things look like the result of a calculation rather than any sort of classification:  e.g., #‘s who have favorited a recipe or # of chef followers.  Whether these need to be categorized differently may not matter but in working through the process such a distinction might be helpful.

    You also use the term “nested objects,” which seems a little unclear because it implies they are a sort of “sub-object.”  In just about every case what you have are “related” objects:  how chef, ingredient, and recipe objects tie together.  A nested/sub-object that you list would be a recipe step, which would probably be its own data object on the back end. 

    Anyway, just observations that may help people working through your CTA process.

    Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
  6. “Smart methodology” + shitty portfolio = shitty portfolio. But now it more difficult to make a design with it. Wow!

    Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
  7. Makes total sense. So much to learn from development and programming (pair-writing, paired-design etc.). 

    I’ve been seeing many UX / Drupal agencies in London pitch for work using this bottom-up approach to mapping reusable content objects to user needs.

    Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
  8. Sorry, commenting is closed on this article.