A few comments based on the biological microevolution analogy.
1) Just like in biology the "why" question is irrelevant for the final measurable outcome as long as the outcome is optimized (sales, click through – whatever is measured). Just like in evolution the why question is important and will be debated in academia. 2) People are notoriously poor at articulating their motivations (look at the industry of psychoanalysis for example). Let's take the position of the search box example. Would the users be able to say why positioning the box on top of the left nav is better than in the right top corner? 3) The difference in sales between the two design choices could be statistically significant 5%. Depending on volume 5% could translate into millions of dollars. Would conventional testing detect the 5% difference in the outcome? 4) Finally, I think, the randomized real time statistical analysis could lead to the modified, more agile development process. I wonder if we call it "Optimized Design Drift" or, perhaps, "IDE - Intelligent Design Evolution"? Thanks everyone for your discussion. -- Oleh Kovalchuke Interaction Design is the Design of Time http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm ________________________________________________________________ *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
