To play Amen chorus to Charlie, with whom I strong agree, let me add one more important thing UCD is, perhaps the most important thing:
UCD is a political stance, a position of political advocacy on behalf of what some may call at worst an oppressed or often overlooked group or class or people: users, co-authors, navigators, creators, etc. And whenever you talk about political advocacy, POWER is part of the equation. Add power to the mix, and the stakes go up, cuz you can give nominal lip service to just about anything, but transferring REAL power, well, that's a much more radical act. A collection of methods can be easily de-fanged, made innocuous to any of the other existing power groups anxious to hang on to their turf (engineers, advertisers, stakeholders, what have you). A collection of methods can be hidden behind, like "Hey, we do UCD, we did our due diligence!" And UCD must then necessarily have, underlying everything, a position of political advocacy, to find ways to give users voice, to bring users and their empowered social groups into the conversations, to allow them to build virtual worlds in their own image, and to advocate always on their behalf. And more importantly, it must put its money where its mouth is, and make a difference for users. In the immortal words of Dr. Seuss from The Lorax: "I am the Lorax, I speak for the Trees! [users!]" Chris On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Charles B. Kreitzberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All: > > In a reply on the original thread (IxDA), David Malouf said: > > ' UCD is a collection of methods, not the act of "thinking of users".' > > I think that is the core of why this discussion goes on and on. > > If all UCD is, is a collection of techniques then of course they will > become > antiquated in time as the profession moves on. > > However, I do not think of UCD as "a collection of techniques" or even the > 'act of "thinking of users." To me it is a philosophy that grew out of the > dissatisfaction that many felt with the way software was being developed in > the early days of computing. Much software was (and sadly still is) > designed > by programmers who were not successful in producing usable or desirable > products. Much design was also mandated by business people who made > decisions based on what pleased them or would forward their specific > business goals. Sadly, this too often happens. > > UCD grew out of dissatisfaction with the outcomes of these development > practices and was much more than simply a collection of techniques. It was, > and is, a philosophy that argued that we need to focus on users' needs > tasks > and activities, their mental models, minimizing their learning curve and > similar issues. The techniques that were developed over the years are ways > to implement this philosophy. > > You would think that caring about the user would be a no brainer but that > was not, and still is often not, the case. Corporations are not > relationship > oriented. They are not benevolent. They exist to make profit and pleasing > their customers and employees is a secondary consideration at best. So > getting attention for UCD has been a difficult process. > > Today the web and the availability of mobile devices have fundamentally > changed things. As the web has become a major channel for connecting with > prospects and customers, there is much more awareness that you need to > please your users to succeed. That's a good thing. > > The evolution of the web has also altered the way we think about user > interactions. It is no longer about one user in front of one computer > consuming the information parceled out by a centralized IT command and > control structure. We are much more about community, user generated > information, and complex social interactions. In that environment, there is > no doubt that we should rethink the techniques of UCD which are often > cumbersome and may not yield as much as we would like. > > So, why is this all an issue? > > We still have a long way to go in convincing the world of the importance of > what we do. We are finally getting some traction as the business world sees > advantage. We need to present a simple and comprehensible face to the > external world and focus on developing the field. Whatever differences we > may see between approaches like UCD, ACD, Ix, IA, Ux are only valuable when > they lead to clarity and common understanding, not when they lead to > confusion and hairsplitting. > > In my opinion, every interactive design should be useful, usable and > desirable. Whatever techniques produce that result are worth understanding > and using. > > So taking the position that UCD is just a collection of techniques and not > a > philosophy about what's important to creating superb interactive products > will surely lead you to discount it over and over. Personally, I find that > a > bit boring. > > Charlie > > =========================== > Charles B. Kreitzberg, Ph.D. > CEO, Cognetics Corporation > ============================ > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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
