Damn.
I'm so glad I didn't get sucked into this discussion.
Since my name was cited in the original post, I did want to suggest
that I've been talking about this problem for years.
Most recently, I wrote about it here:
Surviving Our Success: Three Radical Recommendations
http://tinyurl.com/5z78qs
(Unfortunately, a bit hard to find on the unusable UPA web site.
And nobody can explain to me why it's a PDF.)
And I talked about it here:
IA Summit 2008 Keynote: Journey to the Center of Design
http://tinyurl.com/5kasbm
(Listen to the audio or the slides won't make sense.)
Basically, my thoughts are that, for many folks, UCD is a dogma. These
people treat it as the only viable way of thinking about product design.
However, there is no real evidence to suggest that following UCD
dogmatically produces any better designs than ignoring it dogmatically
(like Robert seems to want to do).
In fact, all the evidence seems to suggest that it's a gestalt effect
that any success is derived at all. In either of the above pieces,
you'll hear (or read) about my thoughts on how the techniques of UCD
are really just the stone in the soup. I believe that something else
-- something we never talk about -- is what actually provides the best
designs. (Just like it's something else that makes the soup, not the
stone.)
I'm way to busy this week to actually say anymore than this.
I'm glad there's a discussion. People should just consider whether
their personal dogmas are really what they think they are.
Jared
Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks
________________________________________________________________
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
