I think we are getting hung up on terms here. In the end it all means the same thing. You aren't are programmer designing for yourself a thing that does what the users need.
As long as you aren't that, you'll do a decent job of making your product usable. Most of these methods are philosophical, they are useful tools to teach the principals involved in IxD but they aren't meant to be a map you can follow to reach a perfect result. Mix and match as you please, just don't try to make a hammer screw in a screw. In other words, what makes IxD work is not that the methods on a grand scale are so great, it is that you are separating someone out to think like the user and to advocate what they need in a language that programmers and graphic designers can follow. There are several methods to architecture, and they are all better than letting the builder build a house without a plan. So is true with IxD methods. Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33980 ________________________________________________________________ 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
