"Dude - you were sooo doing research. ;-)" Like, totally :-)
I feel like we do have choices Robert. There's UCD, under that umbrella are tons of tools, techniques etc at your disposal - no one is saying there is one way to conduct UCD. There's also usage centered design. There are lots of other research techniques, design methodologies as well which I won't bother to list. Or you can come up with ideas and design them based on your expertise as a designer and never ever do customer research. If your idea fails because you spent all your capital or resources developing a feature that no one uses or sees or understands anyway, that would be a shame. Bad UX can cripple the best product or service concept. UCD is a proven way to deliver high quality UX. What is it you feel is missing? Jeff On Nov 27, 2007 5:28 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or ACD. :) > > As a profession, we need more choices. Rather, we need to *recognize* > the choices that are already out there whether they fit into a UCD > mold or not, and at least be willing to believe there is more than one > way to skin the proverbial cat. > > -r- > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > On Nov 27, 2007, at 3:10 PM, "Jeff White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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
