Jim, In all due respect, I think people on this list are trying very hard to elicit a definition of RED that can be considered within a thoughtful discussion. As Dave Malouf said, you can't expect to put an idea out there without taking a swipe or two, but that doesn't mean that this community has a propensity for slamming anything that seems unorthdox. Quiet the contrary. You clearly feel very passionate about your ideas, but, again, I fail to see the tangible description of RED that can not only be judged along side other established methodologies, but can be used as a starting point for discussion. In fact, I went back and re-read Dan Saffer's description of "Genius Design" and, whether you like the label or not, the concept is clearly explained in about a page and a half of text. No problem. I totally get what he means, regardless of the so-called label. For an idea to take hold, we must have some overarching concept as a starting point. Detailed discussions of past work should function as "evidence in support of a concept" rather than prerequisite for discerning a concept. In short, if we don't get it at "hello", it's not going evolve as a productive conversation. To your point, it ends up being and endless Q&A rather than a thoughtful debate. Rather than spending so much time dissecting the "nature" of discussions on this list, your efforts would be better served by putting on the old marketing hat and crafting a definition of RED that might be used as a doorway into what you consider a more productive conversation.
Cheers, Cindy ________________________________________________________________ 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
