Despite having a strong opinion about Norman's piece (which people might have gotten privy to on twitter) I've stayed out of this debate, b/c as I read it more I realized that Norman is both right and wrong, which in the end makes him wrong and that's what I'd like to discuss.
Navid's piece is very articulate (if not a tad winded) and speaks to a few of the issues, which I won't repeat, but what I did realize is that Norman (and Dan Saffer's interpretation) are both right in so far as historically speaking invention (and I'll correct Norman by distinguishing invention over innovation) has been largely about a Mt. Everest effect--I built it b/c of the challenge. These major "breakthroughs" did not follow formalized research initiatives for sure. Can't really argue that at all and this is where they are right about their description of history. Where they are wrong is in 3 areas. What was, should be what will be, which I think is Navid's main point and further, that "needs" were not understood by the invention. And 3 that design research is not used to take inventions and make them into disruptive business successes. 1st point re: what we need to be doing ... In this world where it is obvious that the status quo has actually all but destroyed both our economy and planet isn't it time to maybe flip things on their head. Shouldn't corporatized invention maybe take some guidance from human understanding brought about from research instead of research trying to make good on the promise of invention? Just sayin' "If it is broke, maybe you should change it!" But also it is important for us to realize that all invention happened contextually and usually the best examples were done by people who was acutely aware of latent (i.e. previously inarticulate needs). Fire was not an invention, but the need to control fire led people to figure out how to harness its power for warmth, security and food preparation. The needs were understood before the technology (control) was applied. The car was brought about b/c of an understood need to change the way people transport themselves. We didn't need "research" but the needs were definitely well understood. Roads in Europe were directly created because of a need by Rome, and so and so forth. So my point is that Norman is correct in his analysis, but his interpretation of his own analysis on future thinking is where I disagree most. -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=48144 ________________________________________________________________ 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
