On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Jared Spool <jsp...@uie.com> wrote: > Which makes it a practically useless term, since no two practitioners of > UCD do the same thing and nobody can differentiate quality UCD from poorly > executed UCD. > ----
On the other hand, it may be its flexibility that enables it to succeed where a more strictured methodology (or even just terminology) fails. It feels somewhat extreme to go from a recognition that the elements of UCD are flexible and adaptable to saying it is useless. I've seen the same thing with Agile--folks are going to make it mean what they want, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have core recognizable elements (that are valuable). I think Ali highlighted some of these. Anyways, personally I'm not attached to "UCD" as a term, but it does seem to resonate with a whole lotta people. Jared, it sounds like you think that's a bad thing, but it seems that when you're trying to get people together from very different backgrounds, finding common ground and terminology, even if imprecisely defined, is great place to go from towards finding the way forward. I think sometimes we get overly analytical when it comes to this stuff. -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
