I've disliked the term UCD for so long because to even consider the term, one has to reconsider what it is that I do as a designer at a tactical level because the premise is that I don't know what it is that I do.
While you're wailing and gnashing your teeth over wounded pride, it's worth nothing that the term and philosophy of UCD had to be coined because at some point "design", as it was widely understood, meant styling, aesthetics, and personal expression of the designer's sense of cool and nothing else. We've all seen too many "designed" things that clearly did not involve an understood of use, context, behavior, and motivation.
Yes, good designers would do such things, and have for decades (as witnessed by Henry Dreyfuss' book, DESIGNING FOR PEOPLE, which, as far as I can tell, was the first book on UCD). But, the majority of designers *did not*, and clearly many felt it was necessary to distinguish their efforts from this majority.
Gah. Why am I contributing to this? Is this really the crucial topic of our field?
--peter ________________________________________________________________ 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
