> > "The past" is filled with far more examples of products, innovative > thinking, and success stories based on activity-centered research, magic, > genius design, and just plain *luck* than UCD can claim even on its best > day." > > How do you know this? Where is your data? Do you know what UCD has > accomplished and how are you comparing it to magic? >
UCD, as you pointed out yourself, is only 30 years old. "The past" is much, much older. Did the guy who invented the first desk lamp think about his users? Perhaps, but that doesn't make him a UCD practitioner. > Now the title is cute and the point a really good one. I agree with it > completely. But to suggest that ACD is the "replacement" for 30 years of > development is really simplistic. Norman was doing exactly what I suggested > in my original post – suggesting how to improve on existing techniques. But > I doubt that he would seriously suggest that we need to abandon user > centricity as a goal. In fact, he said just the opposite. > The best way I've found to improve on those techniques is to replace them, and doing so has resulted in many successes for my clients and employers. Of course, my ultimate goal is to design something that works great for users, is valuable to them, and meets or exceeds the underlying business goals. But I can achieve that any number of ways, and "the UCD way" has not worked, for a myriad of reasons. It was because of this fact that I looked for new solutions. And the new solutions worked. Hence, this debate. > 2. Let's agree that the world has changed since 1982 when UCD was first > created and let's expand and extend it with activity centered design and > every other good idea we can come up with so we create even better tools. > Amen. > I think we should stop equating UCD (or whatever you want to call it), > which has 30 years of effort and research behind it as if it were > irrelevant. > Many things with 30 years of development have been replaced. Vinyl records. The horseless carriage. The steam engine. Sure, these things are still around, but superior artifacts have long since replaced them as the dominant choice. (Though, it has yet to be determined if a CD is in fact better than vinyl, but that's a different story) > Personally, as long as the design approach creates a product that is useful > to the user and usable, I don't care what name you give it. > Nor do I. Honestly, I couldn't care less how you achieve the result as long as it's achieved. But I've seen UCD fail time after time after time in real business situations where deadlines are tight and money is short. I push ACD because it has worked in all those situations where UCD wouldn't cut it. Part of my motivation for writing that article series and for pushing ACD all the time is to give people who are suffering the same fate a solution to give to their managers (and themselves). One that gives them another way to go—one that might succeed when UCD methods aren't an option. -r- ________________________________________________________________ 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
