I suspect that ACD could be considered a modular component of UCD, a component that could be exercised on its own, but which really should be incorporated into a larger UCD process.
ACD should be a part of the design process, closely related to functional design, one that -might- be sufficient on its own if a designer is pressed for time or if a project has a very limited set of functionalities. In a way, ACD jumps from Requirements to Functions without focusing on the intermediary step of thinking about how and why users would wish to fulfill the goals that require said functions. Jared, I like your scale metaphor. It's a continuum of design, which is precisely how the real world functions. In the company I work for, we often have to decide up front how much design time and research time we can allocate. Although we don't have a formal scale the likes of which you have proposed, I see in this scale a very strong parallel to our projected design-depth results. Short term projects tend to fall back on self and genius design, longer term projects include ACD and UCD. The very best, robust projects, almost always extend deeply into UCD (but include initial ACD steps). I think the scale metaphor is very valuable. ACD also seems to be closely related to Requirements Gathering and Functional Specifications Implementation, so I think that it is precisely correct to put it as the step before (or beneath) UCD on a scale. Many designs end a functional implementations when really they could seriously benefit from a deeper UCD approach. Kudos, Damon Slinging my UX in Providence ________________________________________________________________ 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
