IMO, "Design engineer" does not equal "designer" in this article. Cooper is describing well-designed code, not well-designed interfaces.
I'm confused that his essay is being interpreted as an attack on interaction design. He states very clearly in his essay that he's not talking about this -- he's addressing the difference between easy-to-iterate (but invisible to the user!) "design code" and robust "production code." 2cents, -Anne On 10/30/07, Katie Albers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As far as I can tell, you're comfortable with Cooper's division of > engineers -- although you're accustomed to different terminology...so > let's pass over that. > > It seems that you believe that there once was a tendency for builders > to start building before the underlying work of the designer was in > place, but that that no longer happens in today's good companies. All > I can really say to that is "wow! Have you ever been lucky!" > > First of all, keep in mind that for many/most of us, our > understanding of the professional SW world is skewed by the simple > fact that we work with and for companies that are smart enough to > hire us. Thus, they implicitly acknowledge the existence and > importance of IxD. > > But it is still very much the case that the work of interaction > design gets relegated to the hands of the "builders" much of the > time, in my experience. Time constraints, resource constraints, > failure to understand that just because the engineer *can* work out a > way to get from point A to point B does not mean it will be a good > way...All these things and so many more frequently mean that the > "design" part just doesn't get done except by default. > > On the whole, I think the problem described by Cooper remains...and > has remained through many revisions and definitions of who works on > SW teams and what they do and how they do it. System Analysts -- to > my mind -- are a primary example of the obduracy of the engineering > problem. Many moons ago SAs were the individuals trusted with working > out the people-facing side of an app. Very few of them could code and > they weren't generally encouraged to learn how. Now coding is a > standard requirement for Systems Analysts and we are back to trying > to figure out where to locate the underlying design functions for SW. > > Some companies are good at separating and integrating the parts of > the process and others aren't. Interestingly, I've always found > start-ups to be better at it than existing and larger companies. > > Katie > > > > At 2:03 PM -0400 10/30/07, Rich Rogan wrote: > >In Coopers article he seems to "Jump the Shark", (makes assumptions that > >have little relevance to most companies I've worked for), when he writes: > > > >"Of course you can see how both of these problems, (engineers don't know > >how/can't follow design), would stem from the same root: if a programmer > has > >never learned to follow a written design, then he would structure his > daily > >work to do without. He would attempt to do the necessary design himself, > >concurrent with the construction effort. *And that is exactly what > >programmers at all levels and in all sub-disciplines of computer > programming > >do*: *they design code at the same time as they build it.* If we could > >untangle these two parts of the programming job, we could begin to defeat > >the apocalyptic horsemen." > > > >He then goes on to identify two types of engineers which I have always > heard > >called "Engineers", (Cooper calls them "builders") and "Architects", > (Cooper > >calls them "designers"). > > > >Every place I've worked at/heard of, that was a professional/respectable > >software co., not in ultra start up mode, did upfront design, besides > >"Architectural Software" design. It seems he is implying that > "Interaction > >Design" as a profession is some new concept, which few software > >engineers/projects have heard of or incorporate. > > > >This seems to be very old news, and not really relevant in todays market, > or > >do I just work for ultra bleeding edge organizations when it comes to > >process? I like Alan's premise of promoting our discipline, but he seems > to > >be looking from the past, (very far past in SW terms - 10 yrs back or > so). > > > >Did anyone else get this from the article? > > -- > > ---------------- > 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://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://gamma.ixda.org/help > -- Anne Hjortshoj | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.annehj.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://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
