Thanks for your ideas. A lot the activities you recommend we've already put in place (such as a clear statement of responsibilities), but I'm pondering what else I can apply to smooth out our process a little bit.
To be clear, I wasn't advocating moderate usability or suggesting anyone else should... *especially* if you're rationale is one of the ignoble reasons you listed. But in cases where an interaction designer offers multiple usable designs, and the ideal choice requires more development time than one that's less powerful (but still a viable, usable choice), then I will take that tradeoff to save development time. I think it's possible to advocate for the user model - and succeed - while still treating these discussions as a compromise. But ultimately, I think it comes down to what you said: Having a clear understanding of how you resolve those conflicts saves a lot of the tension around those discussions. After repeating the same argument over a couple spec reviews, we put a clear policy in place and haven't looked back since. :) Cheers, -Sam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25989 ________________________________________________________________ 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
