part of Alan's original msg:
> "[D]esign methodologies such as value-based design, reflective design,
> and critical design emphasize the value of explicitly questioning the
> underlying values, habits, and assumptions that drive both users and
> designers."
>
> (the sentence comes from an as-yet-unpublished paper, not written by
> me, so I can't give a formal source, sorry.)
>
> In thinking about this assertion I find myself wondering how one
> constructs and values usability within a practice that foregrounds
> explicit questioning and presumably induces some kind of discomfort
> due to that questioning.
>
> I'd appreciate hearing others' thoughts about this.
It seems kind of obvious to me that usability can be at odds with
other values in a design situation. In a sense, that summarizes the
disaster story of HCI in the 1990s when instrumental values were
carried over from 1980s work-oriented design ("usable! useful!
efficient!") only to clash with new users and new use situations in
entertainment, leisure, the public spheres, and so on.
The way I see and practice interaction design, usability belongs in
the realm of instrumental qualities to be juggled together with
social, aesthetic and ethical qualities in any design situation. In
some situations, the instrumental qualities need to be top priority
-- in others, they are subordinate. The only thing you can be
reasonably sure about is that there will always be tradeoffs to make.
Alan's clarification in subsequent msg:
> As to "underlying values" this is where I see (potential) contention
> in that the designer's and user's values may not even have an overlap,
> let alone be the same. I wonder if the original author is being too
> casual or speaking broadly in an attempt to make a point.
Not unlikely ;) but another interpretation is that users and
designers are meant to have different values in the sentence
"underlying values, habits and assumptions that drive both users and
designers." I.e., users are driven by underlying values, habits and
assumptions; designers are driven by uvh&a; the users' uvh&a are not
the same as the designers' uvh&a. Far-fetched, perhaps, but the only
way I can see to make sense of the quoted sentence.
My own comment on the original quote, taken out of its context, is
that it seems sloppy to list value-based design (could it be value-
sensitive design a la Batya Friedman that is referred to in the
manuscript?), reflective design and critical design in the same
sentence since the goals behind "questioning underlying values,
habits and assumptions" are so fundamentally different between them.
/Jonas Löwgren
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe ................ http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
