Page Layout

The spread below is my re-do of the Union for Reform Judaism’s introductory materials. (The changes are minor: darker text, a few wording changes, and alignment of the brackets.)

Hebrew has right-to-left orientation, so the right-hand page comes first.

1. Type of service
2. Prayer in Hebrew
3. Name of current prayer
4. Hebrew “Navigation bar” (location of prayer in current section of service)
5. Chatimah (prayer ending)
6. Prayer in transliteration
7. Literal English translation
8. Chatimah (prayer ending)
9. Sources for the prayer
10. Transliterated “Navigation bar” (location of prayer in current section of service)
11. Name of current prayer
12. Chatimah (prayer ending)
13. Contemporary related readings
14. Chatimah (prayer ending)
15. Contemporary commentary and/or traditional sources

Granted the layout does not address the choreography of when to stand, and which lines are repeated multiple times. There’s still some observation and experience needed. I love that the prayer ending is repeated in print after each version of the prayer. At least a few times each service I use the ‘navigation bars’ as I try to locate a prayer in the book.

Now I need to give someone the job of asking people who attend the service to describe their experience using the siddur. I think I’ll be a little busy.

Beck raised the questions: How do you make an experience compelling? How do you build a space that people will love? How do you build something where people can come and get what they want and leave without being controlled? These are questions often being ignored in higher education where there’s a tendency to use narrow definitions of our audiences and to provide them narrow corridors in which to explore.

We looked first at four methods for developing understanding of content and workflow: concept maps, bullseye diagrams, navigation maps, and workflow diagrams. I’ve done a lot of concept maps to understand content connections and workflow. Beck suggested annotating the connecting lines with the verbs that connect them. (This reminded me of entity relationship diagramming for database design.) We applied each of the methods to the concept of laundry—amusing for the audience. During the bullseye diagramming we enjoyed some disagreement about the importance for folding and the critical nature of cycle choice. Beck pointed out that in addition to using the bullseye to prioritize, it helps point out items competing for attention.

The workflow diagram section was especially interesting: starting with a simple (though highly thought-through sentence) and then diagramming it with decision points, milestones, and participants).

We looked at starting navigation maps from the bottom and working up rather than the traditional reverse approach. Beck encouraged that there’s often a tilt of the head when you start out this way: “Design will become more about the experience than about the structure of the information.” This approach recognizes the reality that, as we know, people often are not starting at the home page. After a first draft, you can redraw, looking for connected ‘siblings’, patterns, and relationships. The result will be a map with a flat bottom with an uneven top. I’m interested to play this out and see what happens.

Beck then explored the introduction of humans into the process through methods with varying levels of intimacy: web-based surveys, card sorts, one-on-one interviews, and ethnographic studies. If my presentation reiterated the need for data on which to base your decisions, Beck reinforced the value of tactile experience, the importance of respecting the people you’re designing for, and the validity of trusting yourself.