...@lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Jarod
Tang
Sent: Thu, Dec 31, 2009 5:42
To: IXDA list
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] [anthrodesign] Norman replies to Nussbaum
More don's argument.
The reason is simple. People's needs come after
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
Jared and others,
In case it wasn't clear, I believe argumentation about whether
needs or technology came first isn't a fruitful way forward. More
importantly, we should examine what we mean by 'disruption'.
In my comments, I said:
Ultimately, the measuring stick that we ought to use is the
Analysis of history (such as Norman's essay) tells what approach has
been used most frequently, but it fails to answer the implied question
of 'what is the best approach?' Everett Rogers (diffusion of
innovation) provides significantly more insight into what makes
products successful. In
On Jan 3, 2010, at 9:26 AM, mark schraad wrote:
Analysis of history (such as Norman's essay) tells what approach has
been used most frequently, but it fails to answer the implied
question of 'what is the best approach?' Everett Rogers (diffusion
of innovation) provides significantly more
On Jan 1, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Ed H.Chi wrote:
In my comments, I said:
Ultimately, the measuring stick that we ought to use is the amount
of impact each (tech vs. design) brings to the innovation process.
... It is much easier to think of major disruptions coming from the
technology side. ... To
Our favorite design Jester is at work again. (It's usability! No,
it's aesthetics! No, it's technology! ;) - I probably skipped a
few)
It is of course a very interesting discussion that leads us to think
about what technology really is, and what user needs really are.
Norman shuffles these around
Take for example food preservation. Before refrigerator (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator#History), food is preserved by
baking it or natural ice. Then, refrigerator breakthrough the way of
preserving food.
If talk about the better refrigerator, needs comes after the tech. If talk
about
Jarod Tang wrote:
Take for example food preservation. Before refrigerator (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator#History), food is preserved by
baking it or natural ice.
Or pickling, canning, salting, etc.
--
J. E. 'jet' Townsend, IDSA
Designer, Fabricator, Hacker
design:
I think it's a false argument. A really good ethnographer can
anticipate (through ethnographic study) the value of a technology
that does not yet exist to satisfy a user need. But there are few
really good ethnographers.
Until the user knows the functionality is possible, they are not
going
On Dec 31, 2009, at 10:38 AM, marc resnick wrote:
A really good ethnographer can
anticipate (through ethnographic study) the value of a technology
that does not yet exist to satisfy a user need.
I've mostly seen this scenario during research -- product:
Assume there was a magic button
On Dec 31, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Dan Saffer wrote:
I've seldom seen designers or researchers then propose a new
technology that would then do what is necessary. At many companies,
this would be laughed at. I assume this would be possible in some
large companies, academia or research labs. (In
On Dec 31, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Dan Saffer wrote:
But more often in practice, existing technologies are applied to new problems
(which may spring from human needs), or new technologies are applied to
existing problems (which may spring from human needs).
Even if that means bending existing
13 matches
Mail list logo
