Reading this conversation is making my head hurt. It seems like a waste of time debating the definition and importance of such a vague term as UCD.
In my workplace people through our 'user centered' and 'user experience' largely without any real thought or concern for the user. Frankly, most of our initiatives are built with great user indifference. Some better questions to debate might be: 1 How do we accurately identify our users? 2 How do we get better, faster and more relevant data regarding what will work for users? 3 To what extent should we consider the user? Certainly technical constraints and business models must remain a concern. How to we blend our user data with the other two and maintain singular vision for product? Lastly, and I guess I will put Robert on the spot here, if you don't believe the current state of identifying, researching and applying user data is up to snuff, then why not try to improve methods? An end around the entire issue does not seem like a real solution. Given the choice, is getting into shape not a better route than just waiting for the double bypass? Mark On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Charles B. Kreitzberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All: > > In a reply on the original thread (IxDA), David Malouf said: > > ' UCD is a collection of methods, not the act of "thinking of users".' > > I think that is the core of why this discussion goes on and on. > > If all UCD is, is a collection of techniques then of course they will become > antiquated in time as the profession moves on. > > However, I do not think of UCD as "a collection of techniques" or even the > 'act of "thinking of users." To me it is a philosophy that grew out of the > dissatisfaction that many felt with the way software was being developed in > the early days of computing. Much software was (and sadly still is) designed > by programmers who were not successful in producing usable or desirable > products. Much design was also mandated by business people who made > decisions based on what pleased them or would forward their specific > business goals. Sadly, this too often happens. > > UCD grew out of dissatisfaction with the outcomes of these development > practices and was much more than simply a collection of techniques. It was, > and is, a philosophy that argued that we need to focus on users' needs tasks > and activities, their mental models, minimizing their learning curve and > similar issues. The techniques that were developed over the years are ways > to implement this philosophy. > > You would think that caring about the user would be a no brainer but that > was not, and still is often not, the case. Corporations are not relationship > oriented. They are not benevolent. They exist to make profit and pleasing > their customers and employees is a secondary consideration at best. So > getting attention for UCD has been a difficult process. > > Today the web and the availability of mobile devices have fundamentally > changed things. As the web has become a major channel for connecting with > prospects and customers, there is much more awareness that you need to > please your users to succeed. That's a good thing. > > The evolution of the web has also altered the way we think about user > interactions. It is no longer about one user in front of one computer > consuming the information parceled out by a centralized IT command and > control structure. We are much more about community, user generated > information, and complex social interactions. In that environment, there is > no doubt that we should rethink the techniques of UCD which are often > cumbersome and may not yield as much as we would like. > > So, why is this all an issue? > > We still have a long way to go in convincing the world of the importance of > what we do. We are finally getting some traction as the business world sees > advantage. We need to present a simple and comprehensible face to the > external world and focus on developing the field. Whatever differences we > may see between approaches like UCD, ACD, Ix, IA, Ux are only valuable when > they lead to clarity and common understanding, not when they lead to > confusion and hairsplitting. > > In my opinion, every interactive design should be useful, usable and > desirable. Whatever techniques produce that result are worth understanding > and using. > > So taking the position that UCD is just a collection of techniques and not a > philosophy about what's important to creating superb interactive products > will surely lead you to discount it over and over. Personally, I find that a > bit boring. > > Charlie > > =========================== > Charles B. Kreitzberg, Ph.D. > CEO, Cognetics Corporation > ============================ > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
