> > I've never had a stakeholder (or a designer) say: > "UCD?! No! That means we won't consider any other factors besides just what > the user needs!!" or "No! That means we can't sketch or prototype, or write > web standard front end code". Come on, people :)
Fantastic point. Following that logic, why do we bother naming things at all? Why not just say we need to do "interaction design" to increase a product's chances of success? Do we really even need all these named approaches in the field of design? I've never heard someone ask which approach I use. Not even my clients. In the development world, the differences between Waterfall and Agile are very clear and easy to spot and explain. In design, however, the differences are very often significantly less clear, and I'm not sure anyone cares anyway. All we really need is to be able to prove that interaction design makes things better, and that we can do it within a reasonable cost and time, and can repeat our success. Come to think of it, didn't this whole problem start with Cooper? Wasn't he the guy that coined the term "interaction designer", thereby creating a split between the idea of an designer and the designer's approach and toolset? (And if so, did he do it just to legitimize GDD?) (Playing devil's advocate here, by the way. I don't know if I'm serious about any of this thought process yet.) -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
