Hi Robert, For e.g., "the elements of users experience", put the different design into a hierarchy of different design ( strategy design, information design, interaction design and visual design, etc). Which may scared the product producer, "do i really need such kind of Ds?", and as well, this also makes designer in wild, "how could i put so much Ds in my tool box to make myself capable?". And i guess this is one of the cause why so many guys cant agree with each other on how ixd should be, or UX should be?
Maybe the answer is simple and straight, the goal is something to be used in user's everyday life, and the aim is to make people get goals easier, happier etc. And back from this goal and aim, all the related Ds can be considered as a design problem solving method/tool-box which is ready for designer's use. Or even better put them into some method cards with smart questions ( as IDEO does) , to make this fun and fruitful. Maybe forget the names, not very bad, cause only results that counts. For a design domain ( according to the Science of Artificial), 0.The goal/definition part What's the problem the design seek to solve? I should/better address the dirven problem the design domain target (better than name it by major method or process). >From this perspective, ACD is more target to the method (not so good), UCD as well has a distance to the driven problem. [suggest first clarify this problem, then maybe the better name follows]. 1. The evaluation part How to to say if the design solution/artifact is good or bad? What's the criteria to for the evaluation ? [we can say it's good by this, that or something else] What's the pragmatic of evaluation by logic ? [ first what, then what] 2. The design solution searching What';s the searching strategy ? [e.g. prototyping, existing product analyzing,] How to arrange the searching steps? [ first what, then what. GDD or similar things] How to represent/sketch the solution? [ wireframe, screen layout, and related stuffs] On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:09 AM, 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. > > 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. > > I know this: I've never marketed myself as an "Activity-Centered Designer". > I've marketed myself as an "interaction designer", a "user experience > designer", and a "software designer". The questions about what I do usually > stop after a basic explanation of that role. > > -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 > -- http://designforuse.blogspot.com/ ________________________________________________________________ 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
