Hi Lukeisha, I'd suggest (as a software architect on an agile team that incorporates UX process) that you don't need waterfall to build good UX. In fact, one of the core aspects of UX--delivering what the users need--can be better assured through agile process (IMO).
You need to plug the UX pros into the agile process. Have your UX folks work with the devs throughout the process, just like they're working with the domain experts and other business interests. If interface design needs to be refactored as part of the process, you guys should be there. Agile does not equate to anarchy. The chief goal of Agile is less to get RAD and more to build quality software that actually succeeds, actually meets the business needs. Agile also does not mean you do no design--the design is baked into the process. You do a lot less up-front, monolithic design, yeah, but that by no means equates to no design. In short, I wouldn't generalize too much from your experience on the project you mention. It sounds like that org has other problems based on your description, such as lack of understanding of agile and/or the importance of UX in general. --Ambrose J. Ambrose Little UXG Lead & Codemunicator infragistics.com On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:36:28, lukeisha carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is all very interesting. I have always been a part of the > waterfall development methodology, where there is (ANALYSIS, DESIGN, > development, QA, then production). In the analysis & design phase, > that was where interaction & visual designs were created & > communicated. Overall consistency of the look & feel, and the > determination of workflow & reusable screens & components where > discussed. > > However, now, there are development methodologies like Scrum & XP, > where significant amounts of time has been lopped off in the sake of > FAST development & deployment, and the analysis & design has been > lopped off with it. The screen designs are done at the developer's > desk in the simplest possible way to get the piece coded as fast as > possible. And one recent experience that I've had was a company > that used the Scrum method. They deployed a product that had very > little consistancy. Lists that provided the same or very similar > data were displayed differently throughout the app. Functionality > that was supposed to be the same was conducted in various ways in > different areas of the app, and more. But that wasn't their first > concern. Their first concern was getting the "major" new & > enhanced functionality out to their users. Basically, regardless of > how hard or how many steps it takes, it is "able" to do this for > you. > > In light of what this post's concern regarding including proper IxD, > it seems it will be quite tough to convince business/product managers > that more steps & time need to be added, when just recently, they > have come up with ways to cut those very items down/out. How do > IxDer's go about reversing that way of thinking? > > > ________________________________________________________________ *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
