Hi Dave, Okay, I'll bite. :)
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:57 AM, David Malouf <d...@ixda.org> wrote: > Ambrose, I don't even see an argument to be had. > Everyone is saying, "we need balance" in one way or another. Everyone has very strange ways of saying this. ;) > But > when they say it they are just saying that this direction is too > much, or that direction is too much. Everyone from their diff POVs > see some other direction as that which needs to be balanced towards > or away from. But everyone is saying the same thing. > You had me up to the last sentence. I agree that folks implicitly recognize the need for balance and harmony; however, the way it is being advocated as more of a "my way or the highway" or as "your/'the old' way sucks" is not conciliatory nor productive nor synthetic nor balanced, as it needs to be. I wish I could agree that everyone here just wants balance, but I just don't see that balance in what many folks here have been saying. I want us to all get marching to the same drum, and the way to do that is not by telling the other that his or her own background, successes, learning, and so on are wrong and invalid. Even in reply to my attempt to bring us together, folks fell back into this kind of unhelpful criticism. It's much better--and has much more chance of success--to say, "yeah, look, you've been sort of heading in the right direction, but here's what might be a better way" than to derisively mock what the folks you need to work with have been doing, as so often occurs with UX/designer types in relation to devs/biz types. The reality is that if you do that, you're only hurting yourself and your cause. > Andrei is sick of UCD folks who preach about the glories of UCD on > high without realizing that there more pieces to the puzzle and many > ways to consider "the user" beyond classical UCD methods. > I would advocate a more synthetic and conciliatory approach. Personally, I tend to sympathize with Charlie's concerns that if you start knocking UCD too much, it will remove what little clarity and credibility there is in the minds of those not steeped in UX/IxD. The decision makers will see our own *apparent* confusion and say "look, you guys need to get your s**t together before I bet money on you." As an anecdote, just this last week I was involved in what felt like an epic struggle for IxD. Folks on the "other" side kept saying UCD--we want UCD. It's something they feel that has been tried, something concrete that they can grasp and latch on to and understand (as an outsider). It does have known, concrete approaches, techniques, and deliverables. If we agree that these can be improved upon, and I doubt anyone would say no to that, then let's work together to improve them. No need to try to totally undermine their credibility in the process. Yes, there will be enlightened decision makers for whom UCD is not a key thing, but they are not common in the software world, at least certainly not the IT world. As I see it, a good practical approach is to let the UCD work its magic in the business (& engineer) minds and then slowly ease them into a more refined understandings. It's not the only way, but it has been making great strides over the last several years. -a ________________________________________________________________ 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
