I appreciate any effort in furthering our field, but I see several issues with what’s proposed in this article:
1. 17 principles are a tad too many
– WIthin a group of experts, communicating fluently using these 17 principles would be challenging, but doable. Communicating these 17 principles with non-UX, non-tech members of the team: near impossible; even if you made it through all 17, they’ve already forgotten most of the earlier ones.
– 17 principles also creates a lot of pain classifying the issues discovered. Classifying the issues now becomes work in and of itself.
2. How measurable are these principles?
– Let’s take minimalism, for example. To measure something accurately, what and how we measure it has to leave nothing to interpretation. A litre of water is a litre of water. A kilo of rice is a kilo of rice. A minimal interface is……wha?
Yes, these principles create a vocabulary that we can use to describe and talk about the issues we discover, which is important. However, I feel we need to narrow down the set to a smaller group of key measurable attributes. Attributes may differ across mediums, but the outcome should be the same: looking at the measured outcome of the quantified evaluation, we should get a sense of what the product evaluated is doing well and where we should improve.