Alan Wexelblat kirjoitti 15.12.2007 kello 0:27: > I've been thinking on this for a while and I admit the idea's still > only half-baked.
Your ideas and observations reflect with mine. But I think there's #0, which is where every designer begins: getting away from what me or you personally thinks is cool. That's a sticky problem. We are hard-wired to like the things we've worked so hard for, like your grandpa, and the grandpa before that... To the list: > 1. Core design. This is "the good stuff" that we all want to be > doing, Good stuff from the end user's point of view, right? There is the stuff that should be in the design, and I think it's absolute what should be there - theoretically at least - more advanced design methods are making us sharper at identifying, which form, information and behavior helps the users and customers to achieve their goals better than what they had before, and what the competition offers. > 2. Demo design. This is particularly prevalent in enterprise software > or situations where the customer (person who writes the check) Almost every product/service goes through some layer of enterprise or financial management, or a bank, unless the entrepreneur has deep pockets her-/himself. This means that some part of the design must be especially comfortable to inform to the stakeholders, and none of it should be especially uncomfortable to inform to the stakeholders. --> A demonstration is required but it's not sufficient. Design communication is a tough topic in itself. > 3. "Checklist" or "me too" design. This could be thought as the design of how to make the final product/ service comfortable to sell. The salespeople have to establish a business relationship with every customer, and they can have one to one hundred (?) relationships per day. Feature lists are a good shortcut for negotiation. Quite often a customer doesn't have time or money to make a truly rational choice. Therefore, we must design the product to feel good to sell and buy. Does it matter if the purchase decision is irrational, if they end up with your design, which hopefully helps them to achieve their goals better than the alternatives? "Checklist" or "me too" considerations are required but not sufficient. But you've probably identified a need for a design/ prediction process, which isn't limited to what you mentioned. > Is there another major category I'm missing that you find sucks up > significant design cycles > on your projects? It's really hard to not like your own experience with your own design, and that's what I'd add to the list. It does suck up a lot of design cycles. So, #0 No self-referential design #1 Design for the users #2 Design for the stakeholders #3 Design for the salespeople and the buyers Number three has 2 groups. If you bow to the sales force, you have to bend over to the buyers, and vice versa. In the end they have to agree on the same price, so there is a design target - the value of the exchange. (Beliefs * Desires) = Value? Thanks, Petteri -- Petteri Hiisilä Senior Interaction Designer iXDesign / +358505050123 / [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated." - Tim Peters ________________________________________________________________ *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
