m still trying to get a grip on why I think games are such a good reference point for IAs and IxDs. I’ll try to take another stab at it in this post. Previously I wrote about how games might be a good way to ’sell’algorithmic architecturesto your client. Even if you’re not actively pushing your clients to adopt ideas such as on-the-fly creation of site navigation, sooner or later I’m convinced you’ll find yourself confronted with a project where you

Posted by Leapfroglog on 1 August 2007 @ 9am

Games have always been a great learning point for (application) design, so I agree. Amazon’s “algorithmic” process doesn’t necessarily need such a technical explanation, however. Often you can convince clients by giving them the right source material to read and learn from. And design teams are design teams — they’re either eager to learn new ways, or stuck and conceited and unwilling to improvise anything other than their own ideas.

In the case of one project you and I both are in some way involved with, I’d say the Amazon model is important to keep in mind because that model is one of the only proven ways to keep a user “clear headed” about his location on the site, his breadcrumb-esque trail, etc. When dealing with such complex projects, anything that helps the user become more aware of his place in the site and the context relevant options he has among the myriad available is a user experience improvement and therefore top priority.

Posted by Rahul on 9 July 2007 @ 10am

Rahul, I’m confused — do you feel games as an analogy for algorithmic architectures is a too technical explanation?

I’m not sure Amazon is a great example of navigation design by the way. I would only use it as an example of how far you can go with generating navigation based on user behaviour.

Posted by Kars on 9 July 2007 @ 11am

That’s what I meant by Amazon. But at the same time, Amazon does a good job of exposing your breadcumb path, for instance.

What I meant by saying that you don’t need a technical explanation is related to your comment on explaining the charms of algorithmic architecture to clients. My point was that you can show them a website, such as Amazon, and explain alongside that or have them read books that explain it, without having to use the term “algorithmic” or “possibility space”.

Posted by Rahul on 11 July 2007 @ 9am

I’m not too fond of the term ‘algorithmic’ myself. It sounds scary to non-technical people. ‘Possibility space’ however, is quite evocative I would say.

Posted by Kars on 11 July 2007 @ 9am

[...] at it in this post. Previously I wrote about how games might be a good way to ’sell’ algorithmic architectures to your client. Even if you’re not actively pushing your clients to adopt ideas such as [...]

Posted by Learning about emergence from games (Leapfroglog) on 1 August 2007 @ 11am

[...] this strangely aesthetically pleasing screenshot in a recent presentation and blog post. Posted 3 weeks ago. ( permalink [...]

Posted by Sim City on Flickr - Photo Sharing! on 2 August 2007 @ 8pm

[...] but if it’s good enough for Mr. Norman it’s good enough for me. [↩]I blogged about possibility space before here. [↩]Yes, I know I blogged about adaptive design before. Also about flow and [...]

Posted by Notes on play, exploration, challenge and learning (Leapfroglog) on 17 April 2008 @ 10am