I find some issue with this argument. Re-applying solutions to new
problems is not ideal. It goes to one of my pet peeves... applying
solutions from books, that may or may not have a similar context or
problem. I see MBA's and business owners reading books like 'Good to
Great' and then enthusiastically applying said recipe to their
company. The same goes with using tertiary research... proceed with
caution and even skepticism.
I am one of the first to talk about wasting time with eye tracking.
The Cog-science folks have already gathered most of the important
data and knowledge from those kinds of studies. But applying
learnings from instance specific research to similar but not exactly
the same context is dangerous.
Mark
On Mar 21, 2009, at 12:15 PM, William Brall wrote:
Collecting Data is a big part of IxD, and like any field with a
science background, that data need not be collected a second time for
the same problem.
Do biologists retest basic chemistry in order to make a biological
experiment? Certainly not.
What google is doing, and why that is bad, is they have taken to
retesting. They have developed a culture where they don't
extrapolate from prior testing, like we IxDs do, even when it was not
our test.
________________________________________________________________
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
