> Yes, this is my point. That good design done w/o any type of research is > rare. >
I assume you're talking specifically about interaction design. Am I right? To think that it happens simply by chance is IMHO shortsighted and naive. > Furthermore, why take the risk? Why wouldn't you inform your design by some > research? > I'll assume you meant no offense by this. Let's look at an example. I recently visited the WTC site and spent a couple of of hours reflecting, taking pictures, etc. Since leaving there, I've had quite a few conversations about the experience. And I've noticed that all these conversations have had one thing in common (sorry - can't tell you what it is without sharing my idea and I'm not ready to do that yet). I wasn't doing research, just having conversations. But this series of occurrences sparked an idea that I'm now turning into an application that can be applied in a myriad of contexts. (Please don't run off and steal what you might guess is the idea.) Did this happen by chance? Depends on your definition. I didn't intend it, didn't think it out, didn't pursue it, but since having the initial idea, it's gelled into something that will be really wonderful. I know exactly how the application should work and what it should do based on the simple "accidental" idea that triggered it. I suppose you could argue that these conversations were "research", but they really weren't. They didn't lead me to figuring out how the site should work, they just led to the idea. In this example, I'm not designing something that solves a client's need, I'm designing a "place" for people to go for a variety of personal reasons to participate in something interesting. To do this, I don't need to perform any research. I realize not all products are created this way - I do client work as well. My point is simply that not all good design is the result of research. Sometimes it's inspired, experimental, etc. "Design", to me, means a lot of things. In many cases, it means putting together something very functional. In many other cases, it means inventing an experience for reasons other than productivity. Sometimes it's about solving problems. Sometimes it's not about problems at all, instead focusing on personal connections, participation, emotion, etc., for reasons other than "I need to get something done". There may be a difference in the kind of design I'm talking about what you're talking about. What I refer to here may be more of an "interactive art" type thing rather than "interaction design". But who knows. Some definitions of IxD say it's the bringing together of people through technology, and that's certainly what this app will do. Still, I'd normally associate this type of work with someone like, say, Josh Davis, who isn't generally considered an IxD. It always comes back to semantics. :) -r- ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
