Thanks Jared (and yes I got the spelling wrong in my post). I understand and concur with the matrix you've presented, and where the greatest risk lies.
That's essentially why I point out the importance of gaining RED experience (when a designer is inexperienced) by working closely with more experienced designers. I believe I even pre-emptively pointed out the likelihood of failure if a designer bites off more than their experience, judgement, and capabilities can chew. And yet I'll point out again that it's important to reach at least some point beyond ones' knowledge and experience in order to grow as a designer. The key is dependent upon another form of judgement, and that's how much of a risk of the unknown to take. To elaborate just a bit on how a RED practitioner knows what the outcome will be, I think it clearly lies in having an understanding of how wireframes and flows will come to life dynamically. I and my teammembers can visualize fairly complex interactions in our heads as we pore over complex wireframes and flows. A lot of this comes from experience and familiarity, part of it comes from innate capabilities of being able to do so. There was also an earlier mention of talent (I assume this means innate) and its role in being a successful RED practitioner. It's been my observation working with many designers and collaborators over the years that there are definitely some that have the innate abilities to grasp and successfully wrangle the types of complex, dynamic, and interrelated architectures that comprise interaction design. And some most definitely do not. This is separate from the equally important *temperment* quality, which I also think is necessary. RED can be intense, and that's one reason it's not the type of work that every designer would care to pursue. RED is often a lot like a high stakes game of chess, played on a dynamic board and with and against multiple players/stakeholders. It definitely helps to have a head and stomach for that sort of thing. And yet there are many who relish these challenges and successfully pursue them. To clarify Todd's question, the "Expert" applies first to expertise as a RED practitioner and secondly to expertise in particular application domains. The ratio between the two will likely vary between RED practitioners. Some may stay primarily within a particular domain and have great domain expertise, while others' expertise may be in generalist practice of RED across many domains. And there are RED practitioners that fall in between. Many are familiar with the term, "T-shaped" used to describe practitioners who have broad generalist knowledge and experience across a number of interdependent fields and roles and deeper specialization in one area. I've described a related type of designer - the "Broken Comb-shaped" designer. Picture a comb with its teeth broken partially out in some areas, completely out in other areas, and fully intact in others. And then think about how all broken combs look a little bit different from one another. Experienced RED practitioners and generalist designers are often broken combs-shaped. They differ from actual broken combs however, in that rather than pieces being broken off, they're actually growing them bit by bit over their careers. ;^) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37626 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
