To those, including Dave, clamoring for an in-depth presentation of the structured approach (or as I'd put it, patterned approach) used by designers doing work in this manner, I would first respond that these do exist. Over many projects, and particularly documented projects, there are a number of repeated steps and phases utilized.
RED projects share many aspects of the phases found in other more formalized approaches to design, such as: 1) Initial information gathering, stakeholder interviews and discussions, and review and analysis of existing bodies of information and solutions/products/systems/services. In RED, however, this is done very rapidly, and filtered through what's already known, or been done previously, by the RED designer/team. 2) Rapid prototyping (this will vary among RED practitioners). My team uses extensive paper prototyping, flows, layouts, and pattern diagrams, iterating these to quickly explore interrelationships and refine effective solutions. 3) Produce implementable specifications that engineers can implement in a high-fidelity manner (blueprints), rather than spend too much of the limited time producing interactive prototypes and limited documentation (that engineers must analyze and try to reduce/reproduce as an implementation. These phases and their embodiments and examples are *best and most easily* discussed within the context of a review of real documentation, rather than through a run down of a reductionist list. My initial goal in this thread is not to attempt to do that here in a stilted text-based forum. I don't believe that's feasible. My primary goal has been to signal others in the community who immediately and already resonate with the points I've made. These are others who are already practicing working in similar fashions that have already responded, and that's the best place to start what must be a long-term dialog and exchange of observations and experiences. Seeing resonating responses such as Yury Frolov's indicates that there are others whose experiences and approaches are similar. I'm most interested, personally, in beginning a dialog along those lines, than in getting bogged down in tedious Q/A with those not familiar with this type of design work or those wishing to get wrapped around the axle of semantics and abstract and problematic concepts as "likely success ratios." It's much more informative to discuss (over time) actual cases and experiences with (relative) sucesses and failures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37626 ________________________________________________________________ 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
