On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Jared Spool <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't really formulated principles this way, since my interest is more > in terms of critique and analysis of what's been done.
Now this is interesting to me ... If critique & analysis have different criteria for "success" or description of "success" we have a big problem. So firstly, I'd be interested in what are your criteria for success? How do you critique? how do you go about analysis? What are these criteria. In other areas of aesthetic criticism such as pop culture, art, design, etc. the language derived while more syllables and academic map against those of the creators around them. I'd be interested in hearing from your point of view what are your principles for critique and analysis and if you don't have any, how can we go about creating a language around critique that speaks to both sides of the equation. <deleted not useful historical critique of UCD, hoping to have a long drink with Jared in Savannah in Feb /> What I want to say about the usability definition discussion is that, YES it is important to evolve the measurement and analysis of design the way Jared has suggested. But that should not be the same as evolving the definition of individual words. Let me be clear. "usability" as a word b/c of its roots not just in practice, but well in its linguistic semantics, is a hard word to expand from. how "usable" something is, is so easily tied to the question, "Can I and how well can I "use" something?" I am not in the "usability" practice world, except as a designer and educator who makes use of core practice. But as an outside consumer, i suggest that a strategic evolution of the language should take place if people like Jared really want us to engage with the contemporary and advanced practice of usability as he is speaking. I'm still lookin' at Jakob and seeing my previous understanding of the term well founded and that is not going back to 2000 but to recent Alert Box articles of the last 2 years. Now, to indict myself even more, I feel often stuck behind the term "interaction design" in much the same way, as should be apparent by many on this list and others. There is often a dichotomy of those who define IxD in ways that feel limiting to my own practice, education, and experience. Yet, for them, that is what it is and will always be. When Fiona Rabe goes on a stage at the IxDA conference and too many in my community don't understand what what she is doing has to do with IxD, or further what the heck Robert Fabricant means when he says that Behavior is our Medium, I have to ask myself if there is really an IxD community of practice at all. (and whether or not i can do better than write such a run-on sentence like that one!) My point being is that the best we can do is do what i did. I stated my assumptions and moved from there. Language is doing more than shifting, it is converging and diverging from so many sources and influences and tides and turns that it is impossible to know what anyone is saying. We have to for clear communication state our assumptions. This means, longer posts, longer blog entries and requires more diligent and detailed engagement of discourse with long thoughtful pauses. -- dave -- Dave Malouf http://davemalouf.com/ http://twitter.com/daveixd http://scad.edu/industrialdesign http://ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ 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
