Tuesday, November 02, 2004

the inefficiency of the human mind?

In Debunking Miller's Magic, Bryan Eisenberg challenges George A. Miller’s circa 1956 research hypothesis that human working memory can hold seven bits of information at once – well, seven plus or minus two. Dubbed “Miller's Magic 7,” the theory has, according to Eisenberg, informed many communication guidelines, including web design (maximum number of links on a page, maximum number of items in a menu bar, etc.) Miller shows, however, that the most successful sites (e.g. Amazon, eBay) have ignored this research. Miller concludes: If visitors “can easily see, find, and use the site to accomplish their goals, they’ll efficiently ignore the other available choices.” He adds, “The number and depth of these elements should be determined by their relevance to the visitors themselves.”

Eisenberg’s common sense conclusion – essentially, “if it works, it works” – would seem obvious in any context except having to debunk “scientific” research – an often valuable exercise. Which brings me to the true dilemma of persuasion. It’s an art that we desperately want to turn into a science. I like Anthony Garcia’s label, "persuasion architect," suggesting both art and science, but for all the psychology, physiology, neurology, and even mathematics that can go into the study of persuasion, finding a way to persuade a specific audience will always come down to “if it works, it works.” No building will ever appeal to everyone.

Painting is more than a study of light and color. It can inform the art but isn’t the source of it. To become better at being persuasive, we can look at communication theory, we can brush up on writing, speaking, and design techniques, but if we focus on these instead of listening to and connecting with the audience – in a way that works for that particular audience – we will likely fail to be convincing.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home