My responses to Jonas Löwgren (Part 2 of 2): Q: Do you work systematically with product reviews and criticism in your teams?
A: Yes, absolutely. We all constantly test and play with all manners of things. We pass things around and take turns trying out things. And we talk constantly about these things. Knowing about how things work and behave is our lifeblood. We also keep abreast of a number of industry and market trends and track a number of competitive fields. We don't do this formally. We do this informally and constantly. We also pay attention to our initial observations and first impressions of things we analyze. Contrary to the often-repeated warning that we're somehow not "regular people," we often discuss the importance of being able to understand and empathize with the non-expert lay user, and I believe it's possible for designers to develop that empathy and ability. It really is possible to put oneself in the shoes of a range of users. It's partly the lifelong job of good designers to be astute observers of people, and pay attention to them when they're using many kinds of things. A good deal, and perhaps a huge majority of what makes all manners of things easily usable are common, not specific. There are qualities that can be imbued in any interactive design, whether a product, software, service, or system that will benefit users. Easy to recognize and learn patterns, minimal navigational load, and dozens of other things we see again and again across many projects. We have many years of experience in designing small devices and systems, and playing with existing products along with our own which we've had become real, have taught us a lot. We look for opportunities to transmit this to our junior associates in as many ways as we can. We also do a lot of critiques of our iterative designs. We certainly do walkthroughs of our designs periodically to keep everyone in synch. This is necessary because there are times we'll go off and work on certain portions of a project and we'll periodically come together to integrate and reconcile our patterns and interrelationships for consistency and simplification. Our goal is the most minimal and fully functional elegance, with the fewest elemental archetypes and interactions. I've done this alone, and it simply takes longer. Multiple designers can power through a lot of options and alternatives much faster, if they're practiced at doing this and working productively together. There are certain co-consultants I work with where we speak in a dense shorthand, and can work through incredibly complex problems and solution spaces quite quickly because we share a very extensive language of concepts, models, and shared experiences. Q: Do you have procedures for debriefing and knowledge sharing after project milestones and completions? A: Yes. We generally compile a lot of documentation from our projects. This is then reviewable and can be compared to the same from other projects. We also often have real production embodiments to work with at certain milestones, so we pound on that pretty extensively, and will often grab people nearby to do the same, noting their feedback. More often than not, our designs work as we assumed they would. We use feedback to tweak the results. I don't recall ever having to start over, or make a drastic change of course. Our paper design process leads to strong confidence of how things will work, and we work close enough with engineers (either on our team or with clients) to know that the behavior can be achieved as we intend before we move forward. Q: How are you working with conceptual tools for articulation of practical knowing, such as patterns or experiential qualities? A: We use a combination of the type of paper maps, flows, and element-perfect (and later pixel perfect or CAD-perfect) specs along with copious narrative descriptions and creative ad hoc use of metaphors. Our discussions are actually very much like strings of mixed metaphors, and this is a great aid in expressing complex and interrelated concepts . It's actually here where I think language is a very imporant skill and talent for RED practitioners. Some of the best RED practitioners I've known came from writing and film backgrounds, which is not surprising. They understand flow and narrative, which are both important components of effective interaction design. Interaction design, unlike industrial design, graphic design, or building architecture, is difficult if not impossible to "capture" in an image or text description. The quality of any interaction design (beyond what's in the minds of the designers), must be used and discovered by others. We've found that some designers are much better at grasping and growing in interaction design skill. There are some young designers that after one project I know for certain that there is a very valuable master designer within them, waiting to evolve. Discovering this, is without a doubt, the most exciting and satisfying discoveries I ever make. You just look at a designer and watch their thought process and think to yourself - they've got it. And yet they'll have to work hard to develop it. That's how RED rolls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
