Oh yes, agreed, Dave. However, if the methods are not sufficient to take a large enough step, a radical enough shift of perspective, if they just make incremental changes, half measures, kinda sorta maybes, something has to come along and be daring enough to shift fully into the users' POV. If personas don't get you there, what to do? Personas can help to get you into an empathetic space, to get you into the head of this Other and that Other.
Yet in the day of search portals, if no amount of user advocacy was able to displace the power of advertiser advocacy, what rare courage was required to turn down the big checks and leave the biggest portal of all portals, the massive Deep Space Nine of Cyberspace, empty? Full of glorious white space, a design with emphasis, an emphasis that says YOU (user)? Like that movie, where Demi Moore is offered a million bucks to sleep with Robert Redford. Who turns down big checks? Who believes in users more than advertisers? Those who do, practice user centered design far better than those who use the methods and only give users lip service. It's like the debate over what to call something. It doesn't matter what you call it. What matters is what you do. Chris On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:16 PM, dave malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chrstine, > UCD is a collection of methods, not the act of "thinking of users". > So your saying that Google is into UCD I don't find helpful. Heck, > Apple does UCD from that perspective, and so does Walmart. The point > people were making was around the use of the classic IBM class of UCD > practice skills/processes. > > Andrei, ... I don't want to ruin this otherwise great thread here. > If I got some time I'll respond in a separate thread. > > But let's get back to the point of the thread. > At the core, interaction design is about building the frameworks that > other disciplines hang their form making on top of. (So yes, I DO > still separate interaction from interface, the same way I separate > graphics from industrial). I say this because I have seen quite > clearly 2 people take on the different roles based on experience and > knowledge. This tells me that form making and framework definition > are really different. > > Now this being said, the more I know about form making the more > valuable my role is as an interaction designer. Of course, I could > say the same about business and technology as well. > > The reason that prototyping and other form making is required for our > education is that the only way to practice interaction design is to > build forms around the interactions you are designing and in an > educational setting you don't have another department to work with > like you do in the real world. > > Also, while I disagree with the strength of the 37Signal's latest > blog post, I do agree in spirit that being able to make things makes > the process of designing interactions a heck of a lot easier. ;-) > > -- dave > > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
