This is the RED <http://www.red.com/cameras/> you should be talking about!
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Jim Leftwich <jl...@orbitnet.com> wrote: > I don't think how I and my partners design is anything at all like > whatever the design that's been done (as you characterize broadly) > "in technology design for the past 30 years." > > I doubt that all of those teams, including the unsuccessful ones you > mentioned, approached things from very diverse and experienced > backgrounds, with expertise in designing a wide range of development > factors successfully. I also doubt that those efforts have involved > teams producing pixel-perfect and behavioral-rule-perfect > specification blueprints, as we've done. > > I don't think the approach and level of design and interactional > architecture I'm describing is found in the typical way technology > design has been practiced across all products, software, and systems. > I believe that the RED I'm describing is most often practiced by > consultants, and as you'd stated earlier, small teams. > > I believe what you're alluding to is actually a lack of adequate > architectural design. The typical effort has been a cobbled-together > mash of engineering with a big of marketing icing smeared over the > top. Almost nothing could be further from the RED practice I'm > describing. > > RED is much closer to how building architecture has been > traditionally approached. We design it, produce the blueprints, and > the engineers build it. Often it is very collaborative with > engineers. > > And it's not as though there's no research. It's just that the > research is conducted very quickly, and also involves extensively > pulling from any already-known body of knowledge at the client or in > the organization. > > Your claim of it will work well when... and it will fail when... can > just as easily be applied to any type of methodology and any > generic/symbolic designer. > > What I believe, from what I've experienced first hand and what I've > observed, is that experienced and broad-based RED practitioners and > small teams are capable, designer-for-designer/team-for-tem, of > producing more and superior products, in more conditions, in tighter > timeframes, for less cost, than any other method. But that assumes > that the designers are both broadly talented and extensively > experienced. > > The only way to determine whether or not this is true is to examine > the outcomes and the associated efforts that went into them. That's > why I contend that when all is said and done, it comes down to > examples of actual work, as in the design, implementation, and > results. > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
