One of the problems I find with UCD is that it can be too process-oriented. I think it has to do with our need to systematize wins in order to recreate them again and again. I think we implicitly assume that if we use the right processes at the right time then we will somehow be able to guarantee success. But hasn't history shown this to a wild goose chase?
We have to seriously ask: how many designers can consistently create success? Even the companies mentioned, Google/Apple have failed as much as they have succeeded. The difference is that their successes make us forget about their failures. And, to complicate things further, we judge design by different criteria depending on which way the wind blows. Ask a designer about how well the Google homepage is designed and you don't know what you'll hear. What the best designs do is that they focus solely on the end result. Process doesn't matter, techniques don't matter, design deliverables don't matter...the only thing that matters is does the software kick ass. If nobody is using it or nobody cares about it, then it can't kick ass. If lots of people are using it and are passionate about it, then it kicks ass. (insert Kathy Sierra quote here) While it's helpful to ask "what are the most successful designers doing?", it seems less fruitful to generalize to hard-and-fast rules. If there is one thing that design history has shown, is that there are no hard-and-fast rules or processes by which to work. Just focus like hell on the end result because that's all that matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30642 ________________________________________________________________ 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
