The real short version of UCD is: Where users are asked to help you make design decisions.
"Don't agree. There are plenty of instances where Usability Testing, as an example method, has provided clear findings and solid recommendations towards improving the design or in some cases completely realigning strategy or UI frameworks." You are assuming your conclusion. Recommendations does not mean transcendence that is exactly my point. Transcendence is when the quality of the recommendations transcend into the quality of the actual end product. Usability tests are tests of the usability of whatever phases the design exist in, if it's wireframes you will test wireframes, if it's screens you will test screens. The problems being tested in these phases are inherrent in the phases themselves. If users don't see you button in the wireframe does not mean that he/she don't see it in the design. There is no process that ensures that whatever findings you have in your UCD process will transcend into the pixels and the programming, i.e. there is no transcendence. That you can get valuable finding through UCD is obvious and besides the point. They are still to my mind most of the times not worth it (there are a few situations where it makes sense, I have already listed those in another thread) "Agree but still think you need to involve users along the way." Only if the problem you are dealing with are new and within the old paradigm. "Does it have to be a pure UCD process, maybe not, but again this is where the right balance of focusing on user needs, knowing what research they are based on, following best practice, listening to the business, using design patterns (to name a few) and involving users at the right stages is is helpful." At the right stage yes, but that is where the disagreement lies. My claim is that you use users to figure out what tasks they are trying to accomplish and what problems they have with trying to solve them (qualitative user research) and then you test the actual usage statistically afterwards. No usability test, no focus groups, I would even be so bold to claim no personas. I personally don't need them and don't see their value they are false safety and false impression of quality. "- Dont think it should and what do you base this on? " On experience. 90% of the cases that UCD is normally used for you could just have gone with the accumulated knowledge that the UX in question already had. Do you really need to test if your navigation makes sense for the umpt time even though it's a bar in the top and a left menu navigation on the left? I say no, I say if you want to call yourself an expert that should be the type of expert that make sure that the end product is of good quality, not just the process of gathering user input. Where UCD really goes wrong is when it starts to think that every problem is unique and that you need users to find those little differences and that this should somehow inform your product or service down in the UI. That is in my opinion and experience simply just death wrong. A sign-up process shouldn't be unique, the communication to getting you sign-up should on the other hand. "Do we know this about Apple? Do we know that Apple didnt apply some part of UCD in their process? " Yes we do. "I dont see this a whole or nothing approach with process - following UCD or not following UCD, its a mix of the right approaches that make all the difference - time, budget, culture, usability/UX/design maturity also play a role." Again I am not against user input, I am against using users to make design decisions with. That is what UCD is all about and that is where it is missing the point. "- Perhaps but we have also seen many cases where the user articulates what they want clearly, it confirms what we thought and it helps the business communicate the voice of the customer to help make their case to management." The only thing that it do is save asses. Cause even when the product or service launches and fails, every one can claim that they asked the users what they wanted. You can't build a business on what users want. They want all sorts of things and they just want more of the same. You would soon end up with a spaceship that no one knows how to fly. What you need to do is to give them what is necessary. And that is your job as the expert to figure out what that is. If you look at the problems they have instead of what they want, then we are on to something. "Some do and are becoming savvy enough to know. Part of our job is to know what suggestions to use and not use for our user base. This includes looking for patterns in data and finding insights that make a difference." This have no value is the transcendence is not happening into the actual finished product and that is what I am saying. UCD process lack fundamental transcendence into the actual design of the product. My guess is that is because it is primarily an academic discipline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46034 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
