On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The bottom line for me is that UCD, or at least the way it's understood > by > > the non-design community, makes products better most of the time, period. > > > (Continuing my last post ...) > > UCD doesn't make things better. Designers do. I think that is what's > understood by people outside the design world. I doubt most people care > what > we name our approach to design or even how we do it. I agree whole-heartedly with you here. > But Peter's point is very valid—that we need lines drawn between types of > design, at least to a degree. Industrial designers are very different than > graphic artists, for example, and graphic artists are very different than > interaction designers. But feel like we were reading different posts here. I read Peter M.'s post as more distinguishing bad design (i.e. ignores the user as a constraint of a design problem) from good (weighs the user's needs and other inputs and creates an appropriate design). But that doesn't fundamentally change that industrial, graphic and interaction designers all engage in the same basic activities (quoting Andrei): 1) Define and understand the problem in relevant terms 2) Solve the problem elegantly Personally, I'm going to embrace any tool that helps me in those two tasks. But I'll also set any tool or process aside the minute I feel like it's holding me back. Chris Hunter ________________________________________________________________ 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
