On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr wrote:
I thought this would play into your Activity-Centered Design mantra.
After all, understanding user expectations would require studying
users, which I thought was against the rules of ACD.
There are no rules. I've talked to users to learn more about
activities, but I've also researched them independently. I've also
excluded a research phase entirely from many projects, because the
breakdown of the activity was obvious and research would have been
overkill. Many experienced designers have done this regardless of
their feelings on ACD.
(Maybe the reason you and I keep arguing about this one is that you
haven't understood the preceding paragraph. You're assuming I never,
ever research users, and that assumption would be 100% incorrect.)
And I thought the reason we kept arguing was because the patent debate
wasn't challenging enough. :)
I think I understand where you're coming from on the ACD thing.
I believe it comes down to knowing if you can trust your gut or not.
In the cases where the activity breakdown was obvious, that's where
you are trusting your gut. In the cases where you've went out to learn
more about the activities, it seems you weren't trusting your gut and
thus research occurred.
I think that's perfectly valid and makes a lot of sense. Why do
research when you already know what you need to know?
Where the question, at least for me, comes down is how do you know
when to trust your gut? Do you have a gut sense as to when your gut
sense is good enough? (Would that be meta-gut?)
:)
Jared
________________________________________________________________
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
