Some good points have been made, and they compeeled me to do some retrospective
analysis of my own design career to gain clarity on the issue. I can't pretend
that I've ever consciously done ACD; like a recent commenter said, to me this
is little more than basic SDLC design driven by functional requirements. And
for this reason I can easily recall hundreds of times I've done ACD, whether
through ignorance or compromise. In deference to those who see value in ACD, I
can also recall some times that I have done ACD where I don't think UCD would
have added enough value to be worth the incremental effort.
Some examples:
Adding a sort utility to a query result. It wasn't really worthwhile to get
into the mind of the user...it seemed like a good idea because the activity
itself had apparent value (is this really an example of "genius design"?), and
the cost of implementation was relatively low.
Designing a customization/monogramming process for a clothing retailer. The
client said that their customers wanted to monogram, and I went along with an
designed a system that attempted to meet the needs of "the user" without ever
knowing, or particularly caring, who that was. As long as it seemed like "the
user" could complete the task without confusion or rage, I considered the
design a success.
Now both examples could potentially havee benefitted from UCD...the first
example to validate the need for a sort, and to uncover any other related unmet
needs, and the second to improve the engagement of the utility to promote
upsell and loyalty. But not for free...good UCD, the only kind worth
practicing, takes time and money.
I also tried to think of a time I did UCD that didn't include some measure of
ACD, and all I came up with was one real and one hypothetical example.
The hypothetical first:
"Designing" the music that plays in on of those hip clothing boutiques that
caters to people half my age. I know that it's there to supercede activity and
create mood and atmosphere...one that is likely to drive a grumpy old man like
me across the aisle to Brooks Brothers, where it's nice and quiet. One that
makes it impossible for hand-holding post-adolescents to talk to each other, so
the only remaining form of social communication is to shop (or text...could
ubicomp beat the blaring soundtracks?). The idea is to make the store like a
nightclub...enabling and driving to specific activities, but the design of the
environment is activity-independent.
And a real case:
Ages ago my colleagues and I designed a "pitch book" similar in execution to
the Google Chrome comic. The primary driving force behind the design of our
book was to create an impressions and to entertain while informing, but we
weren't looking for any specific activity in the context of our artifact. I'm
sure that many designers here have worked on projects where the engagement was
the goal, and a good knowledge of the audience, in my case marketing managers
and brand managers.
But most of the time I agree that ACD is either a subset of UCD, or a stepping
stone in a larger methodology.
And if you're still reading, I wonder what YOU think.
Dante
________________________________________________________________
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
