> Either a method is scientific or pseduscientific. There is no middle ground.
I just completely disagree with the way you're framing the conversation. Although some here may be making claims about personas being "scientific," I certainly do not make this claim. People are confusing science with rigor. Rigorous thinking is not the sole province of the sciences. Rigorous thought is found in many domains: design, fiction, art, and yes, sometimes science as well. So to say a method is either scientific or pseudoscientific may be true in the limited sense in which you're speaking. But it implies that every method aspires to science-and that which does not achieve science is by definition "fake science." That's hogwash. (Or perhaps more precisely, balderdash.) Many many creative methods exist that do not aspire to science. To call those methods "fake science" is as misleading as it is to call science "pseudo-creative." It's a characterization that completely misses the point. I wish that more designers would acknowledge this about our methods. JS ________________________________________________________________ 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
