Sounds like you have something interesting in the works Robert. Here's where I stand, and maybe it is semantics we're tripping over...
You can come up with an idea or product concept from anywhere - no UCD needed for sure. But UCD is an excellent idea when it comes time to designing the nuts and bolts of how the site works, how people will interact with it, what specific features it has, etc. Jeff On Nov 27, 2007 3:23 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, this is my point. That good design done w/o any type of research is > rare. > > I assume you're talking specifically about interaction design. Am I right? > > > > > To think that it happens simply by chance is IMHO shortsighted and naive. > Furthermore, why take the risk? Why wouldn't you inform your design by some > research? > > I'll assume you meant no offense by this. > > Let's look at an example. I recently visited the WTC site and spent a couple > of of hours reflecting, taking pictures, etc. Since leaving there, I've had > quite a few conversations about the experience. And I've noticed that all > these conversations have had one thing in common (sorry - can't tell you > what it is without sharing my idea and I'm not ready to do that yet). > > I wasn't doing research, just having conversations. But this series of > occurrences sparked an idea that I'm now turning into an application that > can be applied in a myriad of contexts. (Please don't run off and steal what > you might guess is the idea.) > > Did this happen by chance? Depends on your definition. I didn't intend it, > didn't think it out, didn't pursue it, but since having the initial idea, > it's gelled into something that will be really wonderful. I know exactly how > the application should work and what it should do based on the simple > "accidental" idea that triggered it. > > I suppose you could argue that these conversations were "research", but they > really weren't. They didn't lead me to figuring out how the site should > work, they just led to the idea. > > In this example, I'm not designing something that solves a client's need, > I'm designing a "place" for people to go for a variety of personal reasons > to participate in something interesting. To do this, I don't need to perform > any research. > > I realize not all products are created this way - I do client work as well. > My point is simply that not all good design is the result of research. > Sometimes it's inspired, experimental, etc. > > "Design", to me, means a lot of things. In many cases, it means putting > together something very functional. In many other cases, it means inventing > an experience for reasons other than productivity. Sometimes it's about > solving problems. Sometimes it's not about problems at all, instead focusing > on personal connections, participation, emotion, etc., for reasons other > than "I need to get something done". > > There may be a difference in the kind of design I'm talking about what > you're talking about. What I refer to here may be more of an "interactive > art" type thing rather than "interaction design". But who knows. Some > definitions of IxD say it's the bringing together of people through > technology, and that's certainly what this app will do. Still, I'd normally > associate this type of work with someone like, say, Josh Davis, who isn't > generally considered an IxD. > > It always comes back to semantics. :) > > -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
