On 24 Apr 2009, at 21:24, Jack Moffett wrote:
Personally, I consider this to be a poor approach, as it will tend
to limit your thinking about a solution to what you know is
implementable. I prefer to keep implementation in the back of my
mind while designing the solution. I will quite often have to make
some compromises when I get to implementation, but it pushes me to
learn more as I try to implement. The UIs that have resulted from
this process are better than they would have been had I limited my
creativity, and I am more capable. It's a win-win.
[snip]
The flip side argument to that is if you start outside the box and
compromise you end up with something that's... well... a compromise.
If you start within the box and push out to the edge of the envelope
as hard as you can you're always guaranteed to get something that
works and works well. You don't sit there and go "I can't do that" -
you sit there and go "How can I do that?" - It's a win-win.
Not that I've not seen folk your way well too - the usual "it
depends" :-)
I find working within constraints - even arbitrarily set ones - means
I work harder. It's more of a challenge - and challenges always get my
creative juices going. In fact, setting arbitrary constraints is one
of my personal tricks to get myself thinking about a problem in a
different way. Telling myself "I have to do this in half the number of
pages" can really get me to look at a problem in a different way. Even
if I fail.
Cheers,
Adrian
________________________________________________________________
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
