>>> Dan Saffer wrote: Expert: Expert implies greatly skilled and experienced. Do you have to be an expert to practice it? If so, how come many non-trained or beginning designers use this method (with terrible results)? .>>>
- - - Yes, absolutely one should be expert to the degree of design and complexity that they're attempting. Part of the ERD model is that young designers not start right out on their own taking on projects beyond their capabilities and experience. Working with older designers is an excellent way to learn by doing, and incorporate the skills necessary to take on complex projects in this manner. I'm not advocating this being used in the way you describe. And certainly we know that "terrible results" are achievable through the use of all so-called methodologies. It's not just the problem of ERD. >>> Dan Saffer wrote: I find it hard to believe that many designers sell themselves (or self-identify) as a "user-centered designer" or an "activity-centered designer." >>> - - - A Google search on "user centered designer" brings up over a thousand results. Including both self-descriptions as well as job descriptions seeking candidates. >>> Dan Saffer wrote: And also mostly because it, unlike other approaches, does not have a core set of activities or philosophies that guide the process. >>> - - - That's not true. It might be true that those practicing it haven't taken time out to write books, but that doesn't mean that they don't have a core set of activities and philosophies guiding their work. And as for why a comparitive test (which may be unfeasible for other reasons) woud be valuable - it's because many have made claims that ERD approaches cannot produce successful products and systems. This is not *your* argument. You made this clear in your book. But you're not the only one adding to this ongoing conversation. >>> Dan Saffer wrote: You seem to think that the approaches are in conflict, and one can be judged better than the other. That's fundamentalist thinking. We should be advocates for pluralism. >>> - - - I'm not at all saying the approaches are in conflict. In fact, if you go back and read my previous posts you'll see I clearly stated the following: "It's my belief that our field will benefit most from avoiding hard categorical definitions, and instead embrace the diversity of approaches and combinations of pursuits inherent among our wide range of pracitioners." I take exception only with unhelpful and inadequately descriptive labels such as "genius design" and "ego-centric." And I favor the term Rapid Expert Design (ERD) And that no more means that everything using that approach must be done with the same level of rapidity or expertness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 ________________________________________________________________ *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
