Part 2 of 2: RED-focused designers focus primarily on gaining broad and general judgement and design skills and experience allowing them to react and create effective and successful solutions in a wide range of problem spaces. They recognize and utilize a wide range of methodologies, often in rapid and ad hoc manners, but are primarily focused on improving their own, protege's, and teams' dynamic judgement, skill, and implementation capabilities. Furthermore they recognize the importance of methodologies, but separate this from the dynamic judgement, skill, and implementation capabilities of designers that they consider key.
The "methodology" here lies in the master/protege/team crucible environment over time, of applying the three design activities I previously listed, in order to develop and hone better and better designers. Designers and designer skills, judgement, and implementation capabilities forged in the RED crucible produce over time the ability to achieve more successful results (particularly for revolutionary scale projects) in shorter timeframes and with less resources. RED practice is not arbitrary. RED is practiced by many designers who don't understand (yet) that this is what they're doing. RED is not a fallback (as "genius design" is characterized by its fans, so from here out I'll suggest these remain two separate things). RED is a primary approach to doing design. RED is successful primarily because the experiences gained in RED projects (particularly among younger designers) provide opportunity to grow as designers in ways not afforded by more structured and constrained methods. Particularly those methods that downplay the crucial role of individual talent, experience, and judgement or how these can best be exercised and grown. And this schism runs very deep within our field and community. This is why we've got Dave yelling at Yury, instead of recognizing that we've got a perpendicular paradigm clash at work here. It's why others have been repeatedly trying to get their heads around what I'm saying about RED, and missing the point because they're using a different frame and reference than RED uses in order to try to understand it. We observe similar complete disconnects in dialogs between people of different political persuasions and many other types of endeavors and subject, where understanding begins with the participant's underlying worldview. RED practitioners are, at the very least, an unvocal and largely undiscussed segment of the design world. Process-oriented inquiry has some advantages in that it fits into books and seminars. RED expertise and experience is very difficult because it must be forged in real-world circumstances. But it's a monumental mistake for our field to dismiss RED and RED practitioners on the grounds that they're such a minority as to be insignificant or not important to acknowledge. RED practitioners have, do, and will continue to make significant and crucial design and development contributions to development in a wide range of fields. And by beginning now, through the study and dialog of those who have practiced in this manner, to discuss this approach, we can open up this possibility to many more practicing designers. If it accomplishes nothing more in the short term other than to provide a signal to the community that yes, what's commonly reduced to "intuition," can indeed be a superior means of obtaining a successful solution in many constrained situations. And that this "intution" is not really that at all, but rather RED, and greatly informed and accomplished through the crucible of experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
