Best assessment of what the iPad really represents why its critics
have gotten it precisely wrong yet again:
http://www.macworld.com/article/146038/2010/01/ipad_future_shock.html
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction, based on a
few surprising data points I've already gathered and an intuition:
The iPad is going to make a big splash with older people.
Grandmothers and grandfathers, retired people, older folks that a
desktop or laptop has up until now
I've had fantastic success with highly detailed design and
interaction specs for 26 years. Across an incredibly wide range of
products, devices, platforms, and systems.
The specs I'm familiar with have spanned a wide range of fidelity,
from ongoing iterative and minimal specs co-evolved with
Here's a link to a .pdf of Design Vision: A Conversation About The
Role Of Design Leadership, which is the dialog between Luke
Wroblewski (http://www.lukew.com), Bob Baxely
(http://www.baxleydesign.com/), Dirk Knemeyer (http://knemeyer.com/),
and myself (http://www.orbitnet.com), all veteran
1. Yet
2. another
3. exercise
4. in
5. design
6. semantics
7. from
8. here
9. to
10. eternity
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=43357
Part 1 of 2
I see Liz' UX Sundial not so much as trying to encompass (or
contain) engineering and marketing, as showing overlapping
aspects, which do exist (and in different ratios among individuals,
teams, projects, etc.).
An approach which shows UX not as a discipline, per se, but rather a
Part 2 of 2
It strikes me as a valid and useful point to establish User
Experience as a pole around which numerous disciplines, activities,
and concerns revolve. A pole around which things revolve at
different and varying orbits seems very different from the idea of
enveloping, containing,
Andrei writes:
For what it's worth, the larger point isn't about wireframes.
The larger point is what Dave is saying. If all you create is
wireframes, then you're not really an interface or interaction
designer.
Response:
I completely disagree, which simply goes to show that there can be
very
I think we're in agreement regarding the difference between just
simple wireframes and flows that are composed of production source
images and elements.
But I do believe that some of us find it easier and more to iterate
and explore using digital tools, than by sketching. I do. And as I
stated,
The idea I'd brought up at our IxDA Board meeting was to begin an IxD
Timeline that specifically wouldn't lead to the type of arguments our
community has traditionally wallowed in.
The idea was to create a very open project, where individuals could
add elements to the timeline representing a wide
Andrei points to the key paragraph from Dan's book, and I concur
wholeheartedly with it. I've stated in forums before, including
dialogs with Dan, that he's pinned the dynamic. My problem was with
the label, not some of the underlying activities it was used for.
Also, I believe that there are
Jared Spool writes: For the record, I think those were my words
Andrei pointed to.
Okay, fair enough. Dan had said (perhaps repeating) the same thing
in an extended online dialog that we'd had back when his book came
out.
I do think that it's true that designers move back and forth. I
also
Better alternative labels and much deeper explanations will have to
emerge from practitioners themselves.
Talking about design will never be the same as doing it and having
done it.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
Jonas Löwgren writes: However, there is at least one question I
would like to ask Jim from within a traditional-design perspective.
A general problem in developing design ability is the relative
inefficiency of the learning process. Apprenticing and peripheral
participation is the most common
My responses to Jonas Löwgren (Part 2 of 2):
Q:
Do you work systematically with product reviews and criticism in your
teams?
A:
Yes, absolutely. We all constantly test and play with all manners of
things. We pass things around and take turns trying out things. And
we talk constantly about
Jonas Löwgren writes: My last question was about conceptual tools for
articulation. Your reply referred mainly to tools/techniques for
articulating design ideas.
However, I was thinking also of language constructs for talking about
what constitutes good interaction. The way I see it, this is one
David Malouf writes:
Q:
Like Jonas I have another question regarding education. When you
speak of junior designers have these designers been through at
least a formal bachelor design education like yourself? Are there
things that designers should look for in that formal education, such
as strong
David Malouf writes:
Q:
Like Jonas I have another question regarding education. When you
speak of junior designers have these designers been through at
least a formal bachelor design education like yourself? Are there
things that designers should look for in that formal education, such
as strong
To address Andrei's issue with the term RED, I would say that it was
an attempt to create a term that was at descriptive of both the short
timeframes these projects often entail (Rapid) and the fact that the
designers are experts (particularly in designing in high-pressure
conditions, complex
Ha! So you've uncovered my devious plan!
I would pay folding money to see the look on your face when that
question comes... ;^)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37626
Others could speak to Agile in depth. My take on it, from the
exposure I've had to it at conferences and reading about it, is that
it's a more formalized version of what I've been describing and more
often found inside permanent development organizations (though some
consultancies may indeed use
Part 1 of 2:
First, I'd like to acknowledge the many exellent points made by
Jonas Löwgren above. His grasp on where I'm coming from here is
both astute, and also was a great help (along with reading the
responses of several others) in gaining a better insight as to where
there's a significant
Part 2 of 2:
RED-focused designers focus primarily on gaining broad and general
judgement and design skills and experience allowing them to react and
create effective and successful solutions in a wide range of problem
spaces. They recognize and utilize a wide range of methodologies,
often in
Liz, we absolutley make use of scenarios. We've done this in-depth
in projects where we were developing OS-level frameworks for mobile
phones (i.e.: not simply single apps, but OS frameworks for all
subsequent common interface elements and interactions for associated
apps). These include both
I think everything I and my co-designers have done in our careers have
been about creating the very best and ambitiously successful products,
software, and systems in the shortest period of time and in the most
efficient way - as opposed to belief systems or dogma. Our methods
are not random,
I think everything I and my co-designers have done in our careers have
been about creating the very best and ambitiously successful products,
software, and systems in the shortest period of time and in the most
efficient way - as opposed to belief systems or dogma. Our methods
are not random,
In response to the many great observations that Yury Frolov made, I
immediately recognize many of those same dynamics and challenges.
There are indeed circumstances and situations that are better suited
for RED approaches, and you outlined them nicely. I and my network
and colleagues have
Michael Micheletti makes some astoundingly insightful points above.
All very good and effective advice for the situation being discussed
here.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37605
To those, including Dave, clamoring for an in-depth presentation of
the structured approach (or as I'd put it, patterned approach) used
by designers doing work in this manner, I would first respond that
these do exist. Over many projects, and particularly documented
projects, there are a number
Thanks Jared (and yes I got the spelling wrong in my post).
I understand and concur with the matrix you've presented, and where
the greatest risk lies.
That's essentially why I point out the importance of gaining RED
experience (when a designer is inexperienced) by working closely with
more
Gloria asks the question, How does a person measure the depth of
their experience, and market it appropriately.
I would say that for RED practitioners this is almost always measured
in terms of past experience and outcomes.
Has the designer/team worked in this domain/specific situation
before?
Mark Schraad states: The practice of assuming that you, as the
designer, know enough to move forward without the important touch
points that research can bring is arrogant and unprofessional.
Well, it certainly is as you've framed it here. However, most
experienced designers aren't approaching
Jared Spool states: Once the team starts to get multiple experts,
they naturally will not agree on important decisions.
That certainly doesn't match the experiences I've observed, in both
cases of multiple interaction experts or in cases where there was one
or more interaction design experts and
The term genius is so problematically loaded, that it will never
function to effectively describe what is occurring in the situations
it purports to label.
It is, rather, a sort of throw up one's hands effort at slapping
a label on a complex reality. It also carries a high propensity to be
Peter Boersma puts forward another caricatured oversimplification of
what actually occurs. It's difficult to respond to it without being
drawn into unproductive and uninteresting argumentation, so I'll just
let his comment stand for what it is.
None of the projects of which I'm familiar with
I think Robert Hoekman's observation is generally correct. Many
situations where RED is useful, if not necessary in order to produce
the most thorough, integrated, and successful solution in the
shortest period of time or also possibly under additional
constraints, result in clients who are
Jared Spool states: In my opinion, Jim, the reason why you're
seeing these caricatured oversimplifications is that we're all
struggling here trying to understand the essence of what you're
talking about.
Well, I would say that any understanding and desire for dialog must
start first with some
Robert Hoekman states: Boy, are you in the wrong place. On this
list, one cannot have a dialog without the inclusion of naysayers and
skeptics. : )
I think this dynamic is familiar to anyone that's participated in
online forums over the past two decades. My approach is not to
engage with
To address Gabby's question, a very small web-sized selection of bits
of my own projects can be found at my site:
http://www.orbitnet.com/
And though it's from 2005, a slideshow and accompanying set of
slides giving very high-level overviews of a selection of projects
can be found at:
Text:
I've been creating complete implementable specs (along with
implementable resources) for software of many types since the 1980s.
Many projects exist at increasingly higher and higher fidelity
thumbnails until complete pixel-perfect (or whatever format the
deliverable will be in) specs are
I don't think how I and my partners design is anything at all like
whatever the design that's been done (as you characterize broadly)
in technology design for the past 30 years.
I doubt that all of those teams, including the unsuccessful ones you
mentioned, approached things from very diverse
In response to Dave Malouf's questions (Part 1 of 3):
Q:
Basically, how would a young designer learn that they would want to
have RED be their methods? how would they go about connecting to a
master (or student of a master) to apprentice with?
A:
Just in general terms, I've found that most
In response to Dave Malouf's questions (Part 2 of 3):
Q:
If Adaptive Path and Cooper are poster children for the UCD design
practice today (yes, I know there are many others), who would you
point to besides yourself of designers or studios worth looking at
connecting with to find out more about
In response to Dave Malouf's questions (Part 3 of 3):
Q:
Is anyone else besides yourself using this term?
A:
I created the term Rapid Expert Design (RED) in order to better
frame a particular kind of design philosophy and approach. I find it
more generic and free of potentially misleading
Robert, my years of experience have pointed only to one thing as being
effective at both proving the effectivness of any designer (coming in
at the beginning), and that's proof of past exerience and outcomes.
This includes documentation of work and results in as much detail as
can be reviewed.
And Robert (Reimann), we are in complete agreement. It's all about
accumulated experience.
I would only add that part of that experience ihas to be in
exercising one's ability to make quick judgements and conceive
interrelated solutions. A designer has to learn to move (somewhat)
into the
I'm in extremely strong disagreement with Jarod in a number of things
he states. I disagree with his statement that one does not know where
a RED design will end until after it's finished.
This is flatly untrue. It's a matter of experience. One has to
have confidence of where a design (which
The extensive discussion that I, Luke Wroblewski, Bob Baxley, and Dirk
Knemeyer had on Design Vision back in 2006 covers a lot of our
career-long observations, lessons, and experiences on the subject of
Design Vision and the need for strategic leadership by designers:
You can get the whole
I still think that king of all User Interface films is Wim Wenders'
masterpiece, Until The End Of The World (1991).
One of the interfaces in UTEOTW is mentioned in Shedroff's and
Noessel's talk (Bounty Bear), but the film is packed with a wide
range of very clever and different kinds of user
What you're describing isn't the kind of usage of visualization and
animation that I'm describing, nor was shown in the interfaces in
UTEOTW.
I'm not talking about using animation and delight to get in the
way of functionality. I'm describing the use of it to enhance the
experience, especially
Scott, in response to your question as to the path I've been on in my
career, I've documented a simplified version of it in the
presentation I gave in early 2005 at the IA Summit in Montreal.
Twenty Years Of Lessons Learned
http://orbitnet.com/iasummit2005/
Companion Slides:
I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the
assumption/assertion that the only way to move up or occupy a
leadership role in a corporation or organization is to leave the
designer track for a management track. This may well be the case
with how some (to date) have made the upward
Mark, let me respectfully yet firmly disagree with you. Firstly, I
did in no way whatsoever suggest, assert, nor imply that my situation
(as one of the earliest pioneers in Interaction Design) was close to
the norm as you put it. In fact, if you read my post you'll
clearly see that I actually
What I learned over decades of consulting was that it mattered most
what level the contract came in at, in terms of how much power and
influence the resulting design (which would sometimes be done
entirely in the consulting and sometimes in conjunction with internal
developers). A contract at the
Good insights here so far.
It's true that we don't know how this will play out, but it's a
very good bet that we're in for some very rough and turbulent times
ahead. We've seen over 22 trillion dollars erased from the world's
credit markets this year, and we're seeing up close what that's
doing
Jamie, this is always a good subject to discuss within the community,
so thanks for bringing it up!
First, however, I'd like to underscore what others have already said
regarding how we all want to present ourselves professionally in our
discussion forums. Those of us that have been
Thanks for asking, Martin.
We will be making the videos downloadable. I don't have an
estimated availability date to report, but the decision's been made
to do that. Making just the audio portion available is also an idea
worth considering and I've passed that on.
Stay tuned!
. . . . . . . .
This .pdf of a paper:
Lessons from Bauhaus, Ulm and NID: Role of Basic Design in PG
Education
M P Ranjan
Faculty of Design
National Institute of Design
Paper submitted for the DETM Conference at the National Institute of
Design,
Ahmedabad in March 2005.
Great topic, Martin. From the early 1980s on, I've known a few
really great Interaction Designers that had been, and still were,
Technical Writers. I think Robert brings up one of the reasons
writers can make great Interaction Designers - their storytelling and
narrative skills. I've also met
The phrase interface design up to this point and calls to limit
the definition of Interaction Design and the scope of IxDA invites an
examination of the term's history.
The definition of Interaction Design isn't, (and more importantly)
won't *ever* be, limited to just the digital domain because
Dan Saffer wrote:
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
One test of the validity of any label to a particular approach is
whether or not groups of practitioners can reasonably be expected to
apply it to themselves and advocate it as part of their offering.
I highly doubt any designers that work in individual, small expert
team, rapid style would hold
I advocate the non-loaded, mostly descriptive Expert Rapid Design
(ERD).
Guru Design, God Design are both sort of ad hominem. They're aimed
at the individual, rather than the method, and as I'd laid out, you
can't seriously imagine practitioners self-labeling themselves with
those terms, or
Dan Saffer wrote:
Expert: Expert implies greatly skilled and experienced. Do you have
to be an expert to practice it? If so, how come many non-trained or
beginning designers use this method (with terrible results)?
.
- - -
Yes, absolutely one should be expert to the degree of design and
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
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
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
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
I've been playing with the OLPC XO for a couple of weeks and
understand some of the criticism being at it in this thread.
However, I think it's definitely a system that invites exploration
and experimentation. The Tam Tam music apps are pretty fun, and if
you've got more than one, the mesh
My interest in becoming an information and interaction designer
started very early.
My first icon set that I created (probably like most of my early
drawings - when I was supposed to be doing something else) was when I
was in the first grade in 1967:
70 matches
Mail list logo
