On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Brett Lutchman wrote:
Providing this illustration from the beginning would have saved a
lot of wasted time on this argument.
You don't know that. Sometimes we have to go through this process to
come to the conclusion that diagrams were needed. I don't call any
of this 'a lot of wasted time'.
You didn't have to be in the conversation in the first place. All of
this is purely voluntary.
Really? Interesting how once you provided an example, the responses
were "Oh, that's what you meant. Now I get it." However, before that
point, there were a number of "I really don't see how that would work
better."
And what you described wasn't what the actual example showed. What you
described:
Next | Previous
was something that most of us know, would be counter intuitive,
confusing, and contradict what you were claiming.
However, what you showed with the illustration:
NEXT
----------------------------------------
Previous | Save & Continue
Immediately cleared up the confusion.
I'm simply recommending that in the future, you take a page from your
own recent notebook and when providing something that you clearly
think is controversial, which is what started the conversation in the
first place, provide an illustration to "illustrate" your point.
That will save a lot of confusion and time. Additionally, it's clear
your point will be made clearer and faster.
Anyways, judging by people's responses I have made a strong and
justified case which has been accepted.
Once the illustration was shown.
Tested it how? With how many people? What's the whole story? What's
the context?
Not even 1 of these questions matter. Even if I answered and said "I
tested it standing on my head with 10 candidates in clown suits in
this kind of context in this situation"...the fact remains that my
users came to the conclusion that I suggested from the beginning.
These are the questions that matter. Bad data in, bad data out.
I'm not going to make a scientific case to go against 'years of
scientific research'. Most people here don't.
And to quote you, following what everyone else does doesn't make it
right. And I'd beg to differ with you. Those of us who do credible
research actually do provide context when reporting what we found.
Just look at recent posts on Search by Christina Wodtke, and past
posts by Jared, myself, and others.
In all honesty I don't care about the years of research.
Clearly.
You have your degree and I have mine. I have learned way, way more
by simply speaking to people to get answers. If you have read my bio
there are 2 things I am know for saying:
Yes, we have our degrees. Whoopeee! I personally put more credit in
someone who balances their degree with field work, then anyone staying
in a lab, or only working in the field. It's about balancing theory
and practice. Both are critical to the design process and making the
"right" decision.
I never once suggested that the entire field should accept what I
say as you stated in your response, but after long deliberation, I
have come to the scientific conclusion that if everyone here listens
to what I say, there won't be any problems.
I tested this.
Now, that's probably the most humble thing I think you've said to date.
Cheers!
Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter: zakiwarfel
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.
________________________________________________________________
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
