Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
About a year ago I approached the IxDA board because I had a project in mind. After a long discussion we agreed on calling it the IxDA Practice Guide and I volunteered to lead the efforts. The main objectives are to consolidate the processes and design language we use by gathering feedback on the different approaches being used out there. I come from an Architecture background and I felt that the Interaction Design community needed something similar to what Architects have: a standard, yet flexible process and visual language that enables them to design something and then communicating it with anyone around the world. I can design a building and send it to a Japanese builder and he can pretty much figure it out. Throughout my career I worked in several different companies and every one of them had its own process and visual language and that struck me as insane. For instance, programming languages are standard. Just imagine if they changed according to the company you worked for. I feel we are all trying to reinvent the wheel, when we should be focusing on the design itself. The UPA BoK is a very interesting project, but I feel that we as Interaction Designers need something more design-related. Since Jesse James Garrett was the first one to develop a visual language for interactions, I already invited him to oversee the groups efforts. Also, I think that this Definitions effort would fit the scope of the Practice Guide Workgroup. There's already a Wiki setup for it at practiceguide.ixda.org (needs finishing) and the email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would welcome everyone's help on this. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
[IxDA Discuss] design process - and my role
I am going to hijack this tangent from the UCD discussion for the moment. Lots of designers fight their changing roles. From the independent role where I get to decide everything that is 'design' to a management role where I shepherd great work, or to a collaborative environment with shared design responsibility - change is hard. Design by committee is a much maligned notion, but a collaborate group of designers with a single vision is extraordinarily powerful. Giving up the egocentric vision of 'I am THE designer' is difficult, but when you see how much better the work can be, working in teams becomes an obvious choice. BTW - that single vision is not about what the end product will be, look like or act like... it is about the results. How will that final deliverable perform? How will it match the criteria the client set, the goals of the design team, and the needs exposed and defined through the research? Personally, I very much like sharing the vision, the process and the results. Mark David Malouf said: No, I'm not saying that I only want to be in a particular phase. I'm saying that ideation is more powerful part of the whole than the craft. If I can also guide and challenge the craft and validate it and define how it should come out, than the crafts person then becomes a chisel weilded by me, or becomes a partner engaged in the same level of creative composition from our mutually different areas of expertise. On Jan 19, 2008, at 11:33 PM, Jack Moffett wrote: I'm right there with you, Dave. Depending on the project, I may end up building the HTML and CSS for the front end of the application. In another project, I'll create Photoshop renderings of screens and write specifications to go with them, and then work with a developer to make sure they get implemented as I intend. For another task, I may do some pencil sketches to work out high-level design and then hand them off to another designer to work out the details. One thing is certain: as our company grows, I get stretched thinner. In the future, I expect to be doing a lot more ideation and direction of others, and a lot less pixel-pushing. *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
Seriously Andrei, you are saying that in order to be an interaction designer, the designer has to have the skills to code the prototype? Or, if they had someone else build the code, they really did not design it? On Jan 20, 2008, at 2:09 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote: I would expect it to look a lot like the IDEO shopping cart episode of 60 minutes. Most of the time would be given to research, ideation, and mockups, with the high-fidelity prototype being churned out in the last 10 minutes for the finale. As long as the interaction designer is actually building and/or coding that prototype with their own two hands -- which includes the presentation and aesthetic of it among other things -- then I'm agreement. Now the question would probably be... who else would agree with that? Or would you disagree with me on those qualifications, and would need to ask a different question? *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
Andrei, you lost me completely with this: As long as the interaction designer is actually building and/or coding that prototype with their own two hands -- which includes the presentation and aesthetic of it among other things -- then I'm agreement. Now the question would probably be... who else would agree with that? Or would you disagree with me on those qualifications, and would need to ask a different question? This is akin to saying that a graphic designer, needs to do the typesetting and the film production, which we all know except for a few major control freaks they don't. To bring in another metaphor, how many architects do their own plumbing or electrical, or even put up their own dry-wall? Uh! NONE! Andrei has asked what do we design? Well I see this akin to movie making where there are many roles that take shape well off the film process: Screen writer really comes to mind as the analog for interaction designer as narrative writer. The screen writer usually is not a cinematographer or editor or actor or production artist, but he/she lays the foundation from which they apply their own particular skills too. I'm starting to feel that you Andrei are embuing your ideal with practice into a definition of IxD or even interface design that may not be as fundamental as you would hope. Too many great design organizations work quite differently from your model for me to just jump in and say every interface designer or IxD needs to be daVinci. Its work for you. Admirably so, but I find this detail of practice to be similar to the way that 37Signals try to generalize their success model into something that works on anything other than what we build for ourselves (which is their mantra). It doesn't and it can't. The same holds true for what I read in your postings here. It works for you, as an individual, but methods and practice are always organizationally contextually sensitive and variant and well, because of such can't be used to define that discipline. That's why design schools concentrate on fundamentals of line form as foundational classes first and then teach process and methods afterwards. The latter is a variant or preference, but the former is required regardless of those variants. -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
The UPA has been working on a project to define a Usability Body of Knowledge (BoK) since 2004. You can review a definition for UCD and many other common terms at http://www.usabilitybok.org/ in the Glossary section. We also have sections for Methods, Design and other subjects. The definition of UCD from UPA's Body of Knowledge glossary: An approach or philosophy that emphasizes early and continuous involvement of users in the design and evaluation process This definition is hardly fulfilling. If UCD could be wrapped up in a single sentence, we wouldn't be having this debate every week in the first place. -r- *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
I think we should own the design of interfaces. In making this statement, is your intent to exclude all the other things we do? This statement alone would mean we're nothing more than interface designers, and one can easily design an interface without any of the other aspects of this profession. -r- *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
On Jan 20, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote: The definition of UCD from UPA's Body of Knowledge glossary: An approach or philosophy that emphasizes early and continuous involvement of users in the design and evaluation process This definition is hardly fulfilling. If UCD could be wrapped up in a single sentence, we wouldn't be having this debate every week in the first place. You're on a snark hunt (http://tinyurl.com/27uzen). You won't find a definition because it doesn't exist. Jared Jared M. Spool User Interface Engineering 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561 http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
On Jan 20, 2008, at 7:44 AM, dave malouf wrote: This is akin to saying that a graphic designer, needs to do the typesetting and the film production, which we all know except for a few major control freaks they don't. To answer both questions from Dave and Mark, many graphic designers when getting trained in design school learned how to use a typesetting machine. Once they get established, they no longer need to do that. With the computer, they are now the typesetter as well for what's that worth. With prototyping, at Involution, we have front-end developers doing the majority of the code for prototyping. This is because of all the issues of time and project schedules and how much clients are willing to pay. But the expectation is that our designers know how to both to understand what can and can't be done (the can't be done is often more important than the can be done) and to have the an appreciation of what it takes to make it happen so they can affect proper direction of the overall design. To be able to do either of those they need to understand how to prototype. Don't mistake the practical constraints of having designers focus on the design so others do the prototyping from not having to have the skills to do so in the first place. On Project Runway, those designers make their clothes. When it comes to working at a place like The Gap to make clothes, other people do. The point is that those designers know how to. Not that they have to do it all of the time. That's why design schools concentrate on fundamentals of line form as foundational classes first and then teach process and methods afterwards. The latter is a variant or preference, but the former is required regardless of those variants. I agree with this, so I'm not sure what the difference is between us. Our current design education in this field barely does the former and completely ignores that latter. Most people coming out of education programs have all sorts of great theory, but not many of them know how to build things with that theory. Don't you think that's a big problem? -- Andrei Herasimchuk Principal, Involution Studios innovating the digital world e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] c. +1 408 306 6422 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Book proposals to look at
Well, I don't know about book proposals, but when I published mine I just sent the editor a summary and table of contents and some sample content. About the 8 months issue, I don't know how disciplined are you but it seems very few time. The time you'll spend with the gathering or design of illustrations is also something to take into consideration. And don't forget that writing a book is not like writing a blog entry. People will use it as reference. You have to be absolutely sure that all that you write there is ironclad. And believe me you'll spend a lot of time re-writing stuff that you're not entirely happy with. To give you an idea I wrote my first book (350 pages) in about a year and a half, while working. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24623 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] design process - and my role
On Jan 20, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Mark Schraad wrote: Giving up the egocentric vision of 'I am THE designer' is difficult, but when you see how much better the work can be, working in teams becomes an obvious choice. Yes, I completely agree. I certainly didn't mean to sound like a design dictator. I constantly collaborate with the developers writing the code and others involved in the project. However, I'm currently the only IxDer at my company, so I really am 'THE designer', just not 'THE decision maker'. Jack Jack L. Moffett Interaction Designer inmedius 412.459.0310 x219 http://www.inmedius.com The public is more familiar with bad design than good design. It is, in effect, conditioned to prefer bad design, because that is what it lives with. The new becomes threatening, the old reassuring. - Paul Rand *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
I think we should own the design of interfaces. In making this statement, is your intent to exclude all the other things we do? Not at all. I believe the interactive design process is, and should be, a rich and varied process which includes a wide variety of approaches, practices, skill sets, etc. Similarly, the architectural design process has many approaches (from the user-centered such as Christopher Alexanders Pattern Language, to the Frank Lloyd Wright design-from-inspiration approach), many practices (skyscrapers, landscape, public spaces, residential, commercial) and skill sets (draftsmen, designers, researchers etc. the usual span of skills required for a team process). But there is no question in the average persons mind that all the approaches, practices and skill sets involved dovetail for the purpose of designing buildings. If one takes a giant step back from our profession, one can see that all design processes, ours included, that require a team (architecture, industrial design, advertising, mechanical design, all come to mind), tend to develop specialties. And the specialties tend to follow the same pattern: the design team needs to know who the design is for and what it needs to accomplish, what are the budgets and materials (whether steel or code) that the team has to work with, and to have an iterative design process that methodically integrates input and critique. We would be naïve to think that interaction design/usability/experience design is solving completely new problems. Rather, I would say, interaction design/usability/experience design is solving the same problems as architecture and industrial design has to solve, but we are solving the problems within the medium of digital interfaces. Again, if we take a giant step back from our profession and compare it to other team design processes you will see many similarities across the methodologies employed but the one thing that stands out as the difference between our profession and architecture is the medium we apply our design process to interfaces. So, I advocate that we embrace that defining difference the medium in order to differentiate ourselves from other design disciplines. The other path is to define interactive design as an approach (with specific practices) that can be applied to the design of nearly everything. I understand and appreciate that this is a valid way to view and promote interaction design. My concern about that direction is that interaction design could simply become a trend that passes, and is passed up and made irrelevant by a newer more trendy approach. Approaches come and go but the medium is here to stay. Architecture constantly evolves (new practices, new approaches, new materials, new challenges) but the medium buildings remains the central purpose of the profession. I am advocating that we move forward with the aim to establish in the average persons mind that all the approaches, practices and skill sets involved in interactive design dovetail for the purpose of designing interfaces that facilitate rich interaction. Those interfaces can reside on the dash board of a car, the handle bar of a really cool lawn mower, a mobile device, a refrigerator door, or a computer but the commonality is that they all have interfaces that allow rich interaction. Joseph Selbie Founder, CEO Tristream Web Application Design http://www.tristream.com *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
how many architects do their own plumbing or electrical, or even put up their own dry-wall? Uh! NONE! Yes, you're right. But they need to know where they go and how they can be fitted otherwise the building they're designing might not be feasible. And that's the same thing I think about Interaction Designers. For instance, I know how to code and program but I don't consider myself a prof. I know hoe to do graphic design but again I'm not exceptional at that. But I feel that I am a better IxD because I know these. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] design process - and my role
I think there is an important distinction here. Collaboration with others who are not designers is a pretty easy thing to do (though that is where we get into the 'you not a designer' conversation about making choices and decisions). Collaborating with other designers, which is what Dave Malouf was referring to, is much more complex. Every designer should have the opportunity for this sort of collaborative experience. On Jan 20, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Jack Moffett wrote: On Jan 20, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Mark Schraad wrote: Giving up the egocentric vision of 'I am THE designer' is difficult, but when you see how much better the work can be, working in teams becomes an obvious choice. Yes, I completely agree. I certainly didn't mean to sound like a design dictator. I constantly collaborate with the developers writing the code and others involved in the project. However, I'm currently the only IxDer at my company, so I really am 'THE designer', just not 'THE decision maker'. *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] design process - and my role
On Jan 20, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Mark Schraad wrote: Every designer should have the opportunity for this sort of collaborative experience. Again, I am in complete agreement. I have had that opportunity, and much prefer it. Jack Jack L. Moffett Interaction Designer inmedius 412.459.0310 x219 http://www.inmedius.com It's not about the world of design; it's about the design of the world. - Bruce Mau *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
If I can make just a couple of analogies... Having an understanding of how a printing press puts dots on paper will help me make better production files, and may in fact help me avoid some pitfalls in designing a brochure that can not be printed, but I do not think it amounts to making me a better designer. I understand how photoshop deals with files - at least the math and pixel stuff. I had a cohort that knew the tolerance curves for film at a level that he could exploit long exposures. That sort of knowledge will never make for a great photographer, but will make us better technicians. Understanding the limits of the final medium is of course important. The coding of a prototype will no make me better designer unless of course you consider it as it applies to final code, and that you consider the coding as part of the design process. I do not. That is production, not design. Agreeing on when a process moves from design to production is likely critical to our agreeing on this issue. Mark *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
Andrei: I agree with this, so I'm not sure what the difference is between us. Our current design education in this field barely does the former and completely ignores that latter. Most people coming out of education programs have all sorts of great theory, but not many of them know how to build things with that theory. Don't you think that's a big problem? yup, I do think that IxD education formal and informal is for shit. I want a program that concentratres on fundamentals/foundations, is design studio driven, and teaches craft. I'm thinking a 3yr. masters or 5 year bachelors like many ID programs are today. This is one of my bigger issues I believe IxDA should take on right now. (I got an article about it, looking for a publisher, and everything.) To Bruno's point. Knowing the fundamentals of databases and being able to program SQL statements are two different things (by your comparison with plumbing. Andrei has said on numerous occasions that interface designers should know code. Know it, not just know what the technology can do, but to be able to do it themselves. Maybe not at a production level, but still at some level. I do believe that prototyping (interactive prototypes) is essential to communicating interactive systems design. But as my world gains in complexity, not only would I need to be able to do a plastics appearance model with real snap domes, but at the same time on the same project, I'll need to be able to code in Visual Studio and have it run in Windows Mobile for me to do my job. We need to learn to create partnerships and delegate through a process of shared vision. Andrei mentioned the IDEO project. We all know that the people doing the sketching didn't do the lathe work. They had a team of mechanical engineers and shop people who really did the work overnight of building the prototypes. They say so in the clip. Yes, that psychologist was able to do the mechanics on that cart, I'm sure. Working in deep collaboration, knowing your expertise in the foundations that you have gone deep in, while broadly understanding the constraints and advantages of the total system you are designing for is key. -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
Seriously, guys, can you make this any more difficult? As a writer/editor, may I suggest something that may help advance this beyond the realm of philosophy? (please say yes) Write a definition that suits you. Better yet, write a definition that you *love*. Keep it short. Hoist it up the flagpole. Let us all shoot holes in it or salute it. Then move on to definition #2. Lather, rinse, repeat. Just a thought. Carry on! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Mark Schraad wrote: Having an understanding of how a printing press puts dots on paper will help me make better production files, and may in fact help me avoid some pitfalls in designing a brochure that can not be printed, but I do not think it amounts to making me a better designer. Sure, talent makes you better designer. But at the same time, given an equal amount of talent, the one that understands how to use the letterpress is the better graphic designer, right? Further... learning how to use a typesetting machine or a letterpress is not just about understanding how it puts ink on paper. Anyone who has ever had a chance to craft a poster using one will tell you it's about learning craft in a way that is impossible otherwise. There's so much more about graphic design that makes so much more sense when you have to not only draw something but actually make it real with your own two hands. Doing so gives you an entirely new world view on what it takes to both build and design. That's the larger issue at play. -- Andrei Herasimchuk Principal, Involution Studios innovating the digital world e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] c. +1 408 306 6422 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
Andrei said: But if you mean anything that has to do with how the software or digital aspects of the Razr work, then absolutely. This includes finding ways to work with the hardware components that would drive interacting with the underlying software or code. And that's largely the distinction I make. As long as it touches the code portion of the product, thats where I think it becomes digital design, interaction design, interface design, or whatever we all finally wind up calling it. There are a number of industrial designers in IxDA, as well as Interaction Designers who work in Industrial and Product Design studios, who work on interaction aspects of products which don't necessarily have digital or code-related natures. Interaction Design as I've practiced it since the early 1980s (and others have as well) includes everything associated with usage and operational patterns. This can, and often does mean digital or interaction with the code portions of electronic products, but for me it also includes things like how blood sample contains are loaded into an analyzer. This is human interaction, and in my generalist, whole-product design approach, this is about interaction. I also just want to say right now at the start that I'll strongly oppose the inclusion of Dan Saffer's term, Genius Design, for a range of reasons. 1) It's not a term that I can imagine ANYBODY would consider applying to themselves, let alone accurately describing or expressing what's actually at the heart of what the term proposes to label. 2) What's at the heart of what the inadequate (and I maintain, somewhat sneering) term, genius design proposes to label is actually a mix of: 2a) Individual or small-scale expert team design 2b) Short development schedule and/or budget timeframes 2c) Expert decisions and judgements best carried out by experienced practitioners So let's axe the term genius design, right here and now. If someone or a consensus wishes to label some ultra-successful generalist or small team, or special forces design efforts as genius, or specific designers who've demonstrated significant success track records, then fine. But this is highly inadequate when it comes to the category of approach represented by the types of individuals and small groups that I describe above. Why are these semantics important to us as a field? For these reasons: 1) Individual or small-scale expert team design is a valid approach to design 2) Valid and successful careers can be built upon Individual or small-scale expert team design approaches 3) Many products and systems have needs (and time and budget constraints) that can be benefitted and addressed by Individual or small-scale expert team design approaches 4) Young interaction designers need to understand that they do not need to be geniuses, nor think of themselves as such, in order to progressively and gradually become proficient at Individual or small-scale expert team design, usually through apprenticeships and mentoring by those more experienced. Jim James Leftwich, IDSA CXO - Chief Experience Officer SeeqPod, Inc. Emeryville, California http://www.seeqpod.com Orbit Interaction Palo Alto, California http://www.orbitnet.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD
Good thought - let's move forward. User Centered Design (UCD) is an approach to the design process that emphasizes adding value to the end user as more important than the inclusion of specific technologies, monetization or other motivations. Hammer away... Mark On Jan 20, 2008, at 7:32 AM, Jeff Seager wrote: Seriously, guys, can you make this any more difficult? As a writer/editor, may I suggest something that may help advance this beyond the realm of philosophy? (please say yes) Write a definition that suits you. Better yet, write a definition that you *love*. Keep it short. Hoist it up the flagpole. Let us all shoot holes in it or salute it. Then move on to definition #2. Lather, rinse, repeat. Just a thought. Carry on! *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
Amen. -r- Sent from my iPhone. On Jan 20, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Jeff Seager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seriously, guys, can you make this any more difficult? As a writer/editor, may I suggest something that may help advance this beyond the realm of philosophy? (please say yes) Write a definition that suits you. Better yet, write a definition that you *love*. Keep it short. Hoist it up the flagpole. Let us all shoot holes in it or salute it. Then move on to definition #2. Lather, rinse, repeat. Just a thought. Carry on! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
Also, I want to hasten to add that by objecting to the term, genius design, I'm in no way objecting to Dan Saffer's excellent book and work. Nor am I objecting to his attempt to describe this generally different approach to design. I think Designing For Interaction is a major positive accomplishment and contribution to our field. I simply think that this specific term is inadequate, and potentially misleading and subject to being construed as pejorative. In mountain climbing there's the term used to describe the style of climbing that Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler used (climbing without oxygen or fixed ropes) - Alpine Style. Our field needs a similarly non-judgemental term to describe rapid, expert, intuitive, informed design that doesn't imply some superhuman or extraordinary individual qualities. The style that Dan describes in his book does not stem from being born with all the experience and innate genius necessary to practice this approach. It's a skill that must be learned and honed over years, and informed by constant and widespread awareness of developments in the field, other successful models (even when not directly in the same domain), and probably a penchant for being a generalist and enjoying some level of measured risk and pressure. And this approach is very much in the service of the user, and that's why I, personally, dislike the term, user-centered design, as it implies that other approaches are not aimed at or centered around the benefit of the end users. This is simply not true. Our field is rife with a wide range of inadequately tested assumptions and prejudices based on both predominant approaches of the largest groups of practictioners as well as extreme unfamiliarity with the complexities and nuances of other valid approaches to Interaction Design. It's my belief that our field will benefit most from avoiding hard categorical definitions, and instead embrace the diversity of approaches and combinations of pursuits inherent among our wide range of pracitioners. These definition efforts always run the risk of leading to more unnecessary restriction than enlightnment and usefully expansive inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
My objection to Dan's term is merely one of semantics. I think there is reason to capture (or name) a design process that proceeds unabated by research because the designer or designers have extensive domain knowledge - or embody the needs of the end user. And I am not sure that deserves the 'genius' label. The other aspect that is implied here is the singular vision for the deliverable - which is valuable in focus and efficiency of process. Mark On Jan 20, 2008, at 10:20 AM, Jim Leftwich wrote: I also just want to say right now at the start that I'll strongly oppose the inclusion of Dan Saffer's term, Genius Design, for a range of reasons. 1) It's not a term that I can imagine ANYBODY would consider applying to themselves, let alone accurately describing or expressing what's actually at the heart of what the term proposes to label. 2) What's at the heart of what the inadequate (and I maintain, somewhat sneering) term, genius design proposes to label is actually a mix of: 2a) Individual or small-scale expert team design 2b) Short development schedule and/or budget timeframes 2c) Expert decisions and judgements best carried out by experienced practitioners So let's axe the term genius design, right here and now. If someone or a consensus wishes to label some ultra-successful generalist or small team, or special forces design efforts as genius, or specific designers who've demonstrated significant success track records, then fine. But this is highly inadequate when it comes to the category of approach represented by the types of individuals and small groups that I describe above. *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] design process - and my role
I think the way Mark started this thread, by couching it in the strident phrase, 'I am THE designer' and characterizing the non-team approach as egocentric polarizes and greatly oversimplifies the spectrum of successful approaches found in our field. Both Design by committee and Genius (or egocentric) Design are polarized, oversimplified strawmen. These terms and categories invite people to take sides, rather than examine carefully and thoughtfully the complexities, nuances, and overlapping constraints, approaches, stakeholder balances, and real world messiness that pervades design and development. Design by individual or by collaboration need not be hard categories at war with one another, or claiming the other approach is devoid of value or potential valid success. Most designers experience a range of these approaches, and each has associated skills and situations and enviroments where each, or a blend with a particular ratio will work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24799 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
Let me quote what Tog says in his article on the subject of Interaction Design http://www.asktog.com/columns/057ItsTimeWeGotRespect.html. He is talking about the founding of this organization and he refers to the article as The most important I have ever written and I suspect he has some insight into what the original view of the audience of this group was. It's Time We Got Respect October, 2003 Update Organizing the new group is underway. Challis Hodge, David Heller, Jim Jarrett, Rick Cecil have formed a steering committee and the first discussions, centered on the new name of our profession, have taken place. The concensus for the name of our profession is Interaction Designer. One compelling reason for chosing this name, rather than the Interaction Architect I had proposed is that a growing number of jurisdictions forbid the use of the name architect by anyone other than a building designer. It is also confusingly similar in sound to Information Architect, a title already in wide-spread use. I am quite happy with the result. It was never my intention to thrust a name upon the group, but rather to launch a debate. Visit the new group to find out what is happening and to get involved. ** I highly recommend reading the rest of the article. He has quite a lot to say on the question of the name and what practitioners the group was intended to represent. Much of it is particularly pertinent in connection with the question of What UCD Is and therefore Who We Are. Katie -- Katie Albers [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
Thanks for that, Katie. Well worth keeping. The period ending Katie's first sentence got tangled up in the link, so if/when you get a 404 Not Found error, delete the period at the end of the URI or use this link instead: http://www.asktog.com/columns/057ItsTimeWeGotRespect.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] design process - and my role
Point taken, Mark. And perhaps simplification/oversimplification wasn't the term I should've used, either. I think I was maybe reaching for something more like loaded terminology. Putting words in the mouths of stereotypical proponents, etc.. Reducing the complex set of reasons why sometimes one (or a smaller team's) vision is pursued or employed as egocentric, (as opposed, to perhaps the best interest of the product and the end users), etc.. I also wish you could be in Savannah. I'm looking forward to meeting lots of IxDA'ers and having many interesting discussions. I suppose this topic and thread is as good as any to say (in the context of roles), that I see another topic of debate coming: And that is the whole issue of moving up in organizations and evolving as a designer means that necessarily one must move into management. There are some threads and discussions around this idea at Boxes and Arrows, and I've discussed it in the past with Information Architects. I'm in a corporation, and a fast-growing one, and that and my other corporate design experiences have not indicated that it's entirely necessary to follow one model of evolution as one becomes more experienced. Yes, design leadership roles definitely include more strategic and higher-level issues, but that does not necessarily preclude having a model where the chief design executive is not also a kind of traditional studio master. I advocate a studio model for corporate designers. I believe the hierarchical model inherent in many, if not most, corporations is not the only (nor necessarily the best) model for designers, creativity, or innovation. The idea that designers gain experience, and at some point *must* leave actually doing the design in order to rise in the corporate structure, or effectively attend to management, strategic, or leadership roles and duties, is in my opinion and experience, another unproven assumption. I suppose some of my own personal perspective on this comes from being a generalist. My own work from early on always had a great deal of strategy and higher-level architecture and business associated with the production-level design work. And integrating those in a seamless whole is a blend of skills that I only learned by being mentored by older, more experienced master designers (who themselves had never stopped designing). It's this side-by-side Master-Protege model that I believe is missing from the majority of corporate design efforts. Not that all corporate design models need to be configured this way, but more the idea that such a model is *not possible* (as has been implied in a number of threads I've read on ascending into management elsewhere). I believe that we're going to see a wide range of models of what it means to evolve in one's design career in the coming years. I just don't want young designers, particulary those that *love* designing so much that they could never dream of not always doing it, or at least being the lead (while also embracing and tackling much higher-level design, vision, and leadership responsibilities). My message is that you don't have to. There are alternative models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24799 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
[IxDA Discuss] The Designers Accord
Gloria:I wonder if there isn't some sort of tie-in forming between accessibility and sustainability. Both are socially-conscious initiatives aimed at Doing the Right Thing There is another, arguably greater, consideration when aiming to do the right thing... I cant sum it up better than Dale Dougherty in this post on the O'Reilly Radar http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2008/01/the_rest_of_the.html regards - p *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining UCD (and other things)
On Jan 20, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Mark Schraad wrote: My objection to Dan's term is merely one of semantics. I think there is reason to capture (or name) a design process that proceeds unabated by research because the designer or designers have extensive domain knowledge - or embody the needs of the end user. And I am not sure that deserves the 'genius' label. I'll explain why I chose the name, even though Jim and I have been over this extensively before. http://www.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/topics/283/Dan-Saffer-Designing-for-Interac-page01.html http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/2006-October/012084.html When I set out to write the four approaches to interaction design, I had the same problem this thread has been having all along: how do we distinguish user-centered design from other types of (interaction) design philosophies? The other three approaches I ended up calling out were activity- centered design, systems design, and what I ended up naming genius design. Activity-centered design and systems design were well-defined and had been named previously, but the last approach needed some sort of title, so I gave it Genius Design; not sneeringly, I should add. I've noted repeatedly I use genius design as an approach all the time. And like all the approaches, it has its pluses and minuses. I don't use UCD all the time either. Or ACD. (I have been accused of having ADD however.) I chose the term genius not because of great intelligence or skill (although both help when designing in this manner) but because of the personal nature of the approach and how it was similar to how the 19th century geniuses like Edison worked. (This is mostly legend, I know.) I could have called it designer-centered design, but that seemed, well, terrible. You can object to the term, but that horse might have left the stable and you might have to let it go eventually. I see it all over this list and elsewhere now. Heck, even Jakob Nielsen has used it: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/genius-designers.html But I'm a little tired of the semantics debate. We should prototype the messaging around our discipline on a wiki and be done with it, rather than have these debates crop up year after year. Dan Dan Saffer, M.Des., IDSA Experience Design Director, Adaptive Path http://www.adaptivepath.com http://www.odannyboy.com *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.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
