I was trying to stay away, but I feel compelled to interject a few
thoughts here.
The term "RED" is horrid. Why we (the collective we here) feel the
need to first create artifice like "rapid expert design" and then get
a bit too clever by then converting those terms to acronyms that read
as words I'll never know. But I got turned off in the discussion a
long time before simply because of the labeling.
Terms like this tend to be meaningless in the long run. Largely
because they unjustly redefine things that had already been defined
more than appropriately in the past. My favorite conversations these
days are the ones that go like:
"So, how do you go about doing this? This design thing."
"Oh. We follow a strict UCD methodology."
"UCD?"
"User Centered Design."
"I see... but what about what the technology back-end? Isn't how the
servers and pipes and all the coding that connects it part of your
analysis?"
"Absolutely!"
"But that's not about the user. That's about technology. What does
'user centered' mean then?"
"Oh. Part of UCD is studying the technology. And even the business
needs. It's all UCD!"
"Um. Ok. Well, let's move on then..."
At some point, UCD becomes shorthand for what you should have been
doing as a designer all along. And when people in organizations attach
or put labels to such basic, fundamental things, in my opinion, it
weakens the credibility of the organization and it's participants
since they seem to be actively promoting the fact that they didn't
know better in the first place.
My take on this whole RED conversation is somewhat similar to UCD.
I've long practiced doing my work in many of the same ways as Jim has
described. But I was taught that those sorts of things were just basic
and fundamental to how designers act. I was taught these things first
in my days of set and lightening design in the theater, but I was also
taught this early on in my conversion to Graphic Design. When moving
over to Interface Design, I just brought those lessons over from other
design professions since there was little information on what the
whole thing was outside of reading Inside Macintosh. Things like,
listening to the design lead, lots of iterative sketching, lots of
prototyping and building, relying on cold hard experience to get past
the low hanging fruit on a project quickly, taking accountability for
one's own design work made with their own two hands, soliciting
feedback from the very people who will use your product for their
daily work, grouping up with engineers to better understand how the
engine is architected and built so it's clear what is and is not
possible, understanding what the person who pays your check needs and
expects out of the design and engineering team, writing detailed
specifications of everything about the design and engineering of the
product, selling the solution to executives and making sure they agree
with the course of the design, etc.
Now, do I think Jim is actively trying to weaken the practice of
interface or software design by creating a label like RED? No. My own
personal conspiracy theory is that he did so because that's what
people on this list do. They seem to make up jargon for things that
don't need it. These terms only serve to act as exclusionary barriers
for people getting into the field and makes us seem like aliens to
those we work with on the job. It's been part of the tech sector's
design practice history for a while now and it must stop, in my
opinion. HCI, UX, GUI, IA, UCD etc. Give it a rest already please.
Given my conversations with Jim in the past, I've never known him to
resort to this shorthanded way of describing or discussing something,
so I have to feel that the inertia of the group may have lead him down
this path. I hope he backs up a little and rethinks putting RED into
play in the profession.
Why? Because the term seems like nothing more than shorthand for
describing how a good designer BEHAVES. The things Jim describes are
the habits that good designers learn over time, and simply become part
of day to day life in the trenches. Just like anyone who practices a
craft, there are things you do and that become ingrained into your
blood as a matter of getting the work done.
But those habits are not codified recipes or step-by-step processes.
Designers have a process. Designers don't use a process.
So, while I appreciate Jim's attempt to explain what kind of
activities good designers practice, I'd really like to see the whole
"RED" term live only for a brief moment as an anomaly on this list.
--
Andrei Herasimchuk
Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world
e. [email protected]
c. +1 408 306 6422
________________________________________________________________
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
