Part 1 of 2: First, I'd like to acknowledge the many exellent points made by Jonas Löwgren above. His grasp on where I'm coming from here is both astute, and also was a great help (along with reading the responses of several others) in gaining a better insight as to where there's a significant disconnect in our understandings of the related issues.
RED is, indeed and primarily, focused *on* the skills and experienced-gained judgement of its practitioners, and not on any particular methodology (as many are employed in ad hoc and overlapping manners, according to the potentially wide variance of situation and project being pursued). The biggest "aha" moment for me was when I finally saw comments here to the effect of, "Well, it simply appears that you're just talking about good design being done by competent designers" Ha! It's *exactly* at this juncture where the perpendicular nature of the two mindsets cross. "Just" RED is primarily the philosophy, approach, and style of practice (crucible) in which designers capable of working successfully in complex projects in very rapid timeframes can be developed. Any RED practitioners, and I would suggest that many (despite Dave's assessment) designers practice some form of RED, and particularly consultancies, would recognize that there is no trivial "just" in becoming proficient in doing complex design and development rapidly. I had stated early on that RED is not one of the traditional reductionistic methodologies that attempt to take the designer (individual and their capabilities) out of the equation. This is also why RED will *never* be able to be taught in seminars and described in simplistic terms in books, etc.. This is also why RED resonates with people who are engaged in RED-like practices and experiences, and seems to be completely opaque to those who are more focused on non-personal methodologies and repeatable generalities. The disagreement in this thread comes not from an argument within the same frame or terms. The disagrement here is primarily between those practitioners, like those of us engaged in RED, which have developed actual real world project-based crucibles in which we, along with team members, conduct our products and grow (individually and as teams) in our ability to do the same. If I could summarize this perpendicular paradigm clash, it would be this: Process-focused designers and designer observers focus on those aspects of formalized process that, under conditions where they're possible, provide tools and means for designers of a wide range of types and skill levels to conduct structured practice. Furthermore they recognize the importance of individual skill and ability, but separate this from the methodologies they consider key. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
