Jack, there were two other point that came to mind. 1) I guess it could be explained to the reviewers that while an implemented site is an conceivable goal. Creating a living/breathing social community for cancer patients is not something that should be entered in to for the purposes of getting sign-off on a thesis. A website 'shell' is a pointless milestone in this context.
When they ask for 'implementation' it should be explained that they're really asking for a live working community. 2) Sort of a small one, and not really a criticism of the student, something to file in the lessons-learned category. I feel a fundamental checkbox for -all- output from a designer is to 'understand your audience'. Be that a spec, an email, a prototype or an implementation. Maybe it wasnt possible for the student to know who was going to be on the review board, but if it was, she could have avoided this misunderstanding by preparing a solid answer to the question. Best regards - pauric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://gamma.ixda.org/discuss?post=23446 ________________________________________________________________ *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
