On Dec 19, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Murli Nagasundaram wrote: > Whew! Did I get all this okay?
Almost. You seem to want to think broadly (very commendable), but then you take a narrow view when you define the base discussion elements: > The process of Design generates an artifact which then needs to be > evaluated > for (among other things) Usability. > > The process of Usability Testing generates data which inform the > Designer > about how to go about modifying the design. I would argue that the process of design produces a solution that improves an individual's quality of life. In the process of design, artifacts are generated. Those artifacts are then evaluated in a myriad of ways (not just by usability practitioners) to move the design forward. The process of usability testing provides insights and information for the design team to make future design decisions. For example, you can usability test a finished product to learn about outstanding frustration or unmet requirements that would then be used in the requirements of an entirely new product. I'd also argue that usability testing is but one tool of the usability practitioner. A good usability practitioner has many tools in their toolbox for collecting data, including, but not limited to, field studies, interviews, and about 80 different variants on the traditional usability test. They also have great tools for synthesizing that data into information and insights and other great tools for communicating that information and insights to the team as effectively as possible. I think your line of thinking (and your description of it) will get much easier if you reach parity on how your describing the problem. Comparing a process of design to a single tool in the usability practitioner's toolbox results in an impedance mismatch. Another way to think about it is to look at how designers make decisions. Design is an iterative process, where the designer posits an approach then makes decisions on the effectiveness of that approach, sometimes comparing it to alternative approaches and sometimes just looking for insights by 'raising it up the flagpole and seeing who salutes it.' Some decisions are made from their own gut feel. Other decisions are made from business needs. Other decisions are made from data collected from the people who the design is for. Usability practice is focused on collecting the user's information, which is varied and complex. That information is analyzed, synthesized, then absorbed into the decision making process. I suggest, if you want to philosophize broadly about the nature of design, you should choose broad discussion elements to do so. BTW, your notion about security is correct. To state it a different way, it's selective usability, where you want to make an unusable design for the villians or intruders, while giving a very usable design (with minimal frustrations) for the good-guys. It's an extremely hard set of design challenges, compounded by the dedication the villians/intruders are employing to defeat it. :) Jared Jared M. Spool User Interface Engineering 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561 http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks ________________________________________________________________ *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
