What does RED stand for again? Redundant Email Debating?
--- On Fri, 1/30/09, Dave Malouf <dave....@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Dave Malouf <dave....@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.) > To: disc...@ixda.org > Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 9:24 AM > Jonas, thank G-d! you're here. Great questions and Jim, > awesome > responses. > > Like Jonas I have another question regarding education. > When you speak of "junior designers" have these > designers been > through at least a formal bachelor design education like > yourself? > Are there things that designers should look for in that > formal > education, such as strong foundation skills. > > Lastly, when you review portfolios to understand the > potential of a > junior designer (future apprentice) what are the clues in > that > portfolio that highlight their potential. > > Like Jonas, what I see is actually quite excellent and maps > against > my own experiences of studio work and what I see us doing > here as > educators. > > I think there are a few problems in how we began this > conversation > that make for some of the antagonistic elements. First, we > were > assuming that Dan's framing of the 4 types of design is > precise, or > complete and in doing so, used the reference to > "Genius Design" as > our starting point. > > I've always had a problem with "genius" > design not so much b/c of > the arrogance of the term, but b/c of the way it does not > seem to > include all the methods that designers have been using for > the 100 > years previous to HF and HCI inclusion into the design > process that > makes up both UCD and ACD (to bring back Dan's > framework). > > Actually, despite the seeming "violence" of the > conversation, it > sounds like what you do is very much fits inside the > framework of > what I teach & have done in my own work but with some > spin and > bravado (and hard work) to make the rapid part come > together. > > I think you are right that there is no inherent > "competition" here > and in many ways, I can see how UCD approaches could > actually be > integrated into what I'm reading in your existing > framework during > stage one of information gathering. > > I still would like answers to my earlier questions about > "ideation" > and "strategy" (the question about telling got > answered). > > Can this approach of design be used for more open ended > problem sets > is really what I think I'm trying to get to? Where the > manifest > requests are not aligned with the true latent problem sets. > I.e. the > request to design a "sustainable" car, is the > manifest request to > the problem of transportation, not the problem of cars or > even > vehicles. > > You mentioned that you worked on highly complex IxD > problems like > mobile OSes (HUGE!), but still well defined. Have you done > issues > that were designing for scales to more about behavioral > economics or > other scales that are about designing 5-10 years out and > what are > examples and how did you approach them? > > -- dave > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . . . > 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
