> What's supremely ironic about this whole debate is that as interaction > designers, we're concerned with, well, human interactions. Yet many of > us can't seem to figure out how to interact with engineers to get the > stuff we designed implemented correctly. > > Jeff >
Hi Jeff, I don't think the issue revolves around a communication problem with developers only and whether a project has taken Agile or the Waterfall approach. It is about how well the project is implemented in first place, how skilled the team is and how busy they are. If these factors are mismatched there is no approach that will be more UxD friendly than the other. Add a bit of internal politics from either the client's side or ours and then things start to get a bit more like they are. I believe that Agile does indeed have the theoretical frame that makes more sense for the client, it is the practice of it that is still short to prove it is effective in large teams, crossing expertise areas. I really don't buy methodologies, but I buy people who get them done well and effectively. Cheers, Luis ________________________________________________________________ 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
