> why can't > UCD be BOTH a philosophy/paradigm as well as the label (rather than > definition) for a VARIETY of different processes.
I think there are definitely going to be differences in process that still qualify, but overall, there are a few specific things that are usually associated with UCD, which is why I think of it a a process, I suppose. Which might beg the > question, is there such a thing as Non-User Centered Design? Yes. UCD assumes the user is the center of focus (according to several definitions so far in this thread). When I design, I put the activity at the center. The user is part of the equation, but so is the system and its possibilities, and the activity itself is the important factor. Not what either side does exclusively, but the activity that both are required to perform. (OK, so that was pretty abstract, but yes, there is such a thing as non user-centered process.) -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
