Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jonas Löwgren]

We have a lot of terms and concepts that fit this description.
We've not formally compiled them (just something we don't have time
to do in the manner it would require).  They serve to label concepts
and patterns associated with hierarchical and interrelational
structure, navigational behaviors, states or situations that should
be avoided (in general), and many more.  Because we're always using
these in context of examples (perhaps numerous examples), they're
easier to grasp.

I would be very interested to hear your examples.


Dear Jim,

Very briefly (it seems to be high time to wrap up this thread):

The examples I was mentioning are academic papers, where I try to  
articulate qualitites of interaction experience that seem  
particularly important for a certain design genre.


One is about the quality of "pliability" which I find important for  
designing good interactive visualizations.


Löwgren, J. (2007). Pliability as an experiential quality: Exploring  
the aesthetics of interaction design. Artifact 1(2):85–95.
Prepublication version available at http://webzone.k3.mah.se/k3jolo/ 
Material/pliabilityFinalPre.pdf


Another is about "fluency" and design of augmented spaces, where  
interaction involves multiple media streams over extended periods of  
time.


Löwgren, J. (2007). Fluency as an experiential quality in augmented  
spaces. Int. J. Design 1(3):1–10.

Available online via Archives at www.ijdesign.org.

I wouldn't expect them to be immediately useful in your work, but  
perhaps they provide a little more insight into what I mean when I  
talk about articulation of professional judgment skills. (And the  
kind of material and thinking I use for teaching.)


Best regards,
Jonas Löwgren

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Joe]

How is RED different from RAD? Seems to be new packaging on old
methodology. Rapid application development doesn't seem any better
than what I read is espoused  in RED. Too, is an expert somehow more
palatable and framable than a genius? 

Just seems that we are truly arguing over angels and heads of pins. I
guess, though, that's what we do...just let's agree not to do so in
front of clients/stakeholders ;)


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jack Moffett]

On Jan 31, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:


This was, as we see now, a fundamentally different departure point
than the assumptions and approach taken by the HCI community.

And thus this is why we see such a large rift in practice, framing,
communication, and understanding.



And I think this is part of the reason you've met with the response  
that you have. There are many of us on the list that also come from  
traditional design backgrounds (e.g. graphic, industrial) for which  
the process you have described is nothing new. It is "just" the way we  
work (though not necessarily all the time). So some have been trying  
to discover what is different in your "R.E.D." from what is considered  
accepted, everyday practice, and why it should be given a new moniker.  
I call it "Interaction Design".


Best,
Jack

Jack L. Moffett
Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.459.0310 x219
http://www.inmedius.com


Design is a process -
an intimate collaboration between
engineers, designers, and clients.

   - Henry Dreyfuss


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Having been trained in Design in a European / Bauhaus-style, it was my
objective from the very beginning (early 1980s) to extend that
architectural approach to a new realm.

Not a physically tangible fixed material architecture of space and
enclosure, but rather the dynamic architecture of elements, patterns
and interrelationships supporting function and usage.

This was, as we see now, a fundamentally different departure point
than the assumptions and approach taken by the HCI community.

And thus this is why we see such a large rift in practice, framing,
communication, and understanding.

One insight that I've gained in working with colleagues
internationally, however, is that many European designers often
instantly resonate and understand the approaches I and my partners
use and describe.  I remember the first time I worked with a team of
Dutch industrial and interaction designers.  It was as if I'd
suddenly found a family of close relatives.  Nearly everything about
how they approached design and solution-seeking, from our style of
visualization, documentation, and patterned architecture was similar.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Clay Graham]

I am kindof getting a  feeling for RED, it reminds me of some of the
same ideas that the Bauhaus, or the New Objectivity movement had
about architecture. That an entire building could emerge from the
ashtray that would live humbly within it. And I think it is concepts
are related to architecture both of the built kind and some of the
stuff we do in Software Architecture too.

1. There is a context for design. This is also commonly referred to
as the "pattern", or "problem". Think of it as the kernel or
soul.

2. There is an immediate reaction. Some from training, some from
intuition and some from genetics, some from culture. The speed and
effectiveness of this immediate reaction is the "R" in RED. 

3. The strength of conception which will allow this meme to grow, and
act as a scaffold for the beginning to spawn exponentially like Akira
or Katamari Damacy from its original source gene. This is the "E"
in RED.

And the "D" its the many little choices, the obsessive weighting of
this vs. that before it is unleashed. 

Alas one can attempt RED, and yes if you have done it a few times
already you can probably do it again, but sadly you dont know you did
it till its probably living a life beyond you the "original"
designer.






. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Ha!  So you've uncovered my devious plan!

I would pay folding money to see the look on your face when that
question comes...  ;^)


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Andrei Herasimchuk]

On Jan 30, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:


I wouldn't get hung up on the term, as we certainly don't.



Oh... I know I certainly won't since I'll be ignoring the term. But  
the first time some executive or client looks me in the face and asks  
me how I'm going to work on their product using the RED methodology,  
I'm going to find you. I'm going to find you and I'm going to find  
some way to make you compensate me for pain and suffering.


8^)

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. and...@involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

To address Andrei's issue with the term RED, I would say that it was
an attempt to create a term that was at descriptive of both the short
timeframes these projects often entail (Rapid) and the fact that the
designers are experts (particularly in designing in high-pressure
conditions, complex situations and needs, and with familiarity within
the domain).

I wouldn't get hung up on the term, as we certainly don't.  It's
problematic reducing complex approaches to terms to begin with.  But
as I'd stated up front, terms such as "genius design" were even
more problematic, and failed even to attempt to describe what was
actually occurring in at least the types of rapid development
environments I and others have pursued.  Hence the more descriptive
term.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

David Malouf writes:

Q:
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.

A:
Some, but not all.  One was educated as a traditional architect and
picked things up brilliantly.  Some have come from writing and film
back grounds and have similarly been adept at learning how to design
and document interactive products and software.  Where these
individuals are likely to differ from someone with a more formal
design education might be their ability to pursue or address issues
beyond simply the interactional aspects.  Such as (for example)
branding and graphic design, or development of physical models (for
physical user interfaces), or other design skills and knowledge that
could be introduced in a formal design education.

I think that the kind of solid design education that you are talking
about is incredibly valuable.

Q:
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. 

A:
I'd look for several things, including what they might have done
previously (documented work, particulary in the area of documented
interaction).  I'd interview them about roles they might have played
on teams, and ideas they might've wanted to try but were not allowed
to or unsuccessful in pursuing.

A candidate's deeper background is also very helpful in
understanding why they may be seeking to work in particular ways. 
Some designers I've met will show an enormous range and number of
things they've done, all in creative areas.  Those designers are
proving that they have broadly applicable creative and thinking
skills, so that's a plus.

A knowledge and familiarity with the field, and larger development
history is also valuable.  And a lot of time with a new candidate or
teammember is simply discussion, rather than a Q and A grilling
session.  The kinds of people we look for to work with aren't being
sought to fill a formally-described slot.  We're looking for a
flexible associate with potential to contribute in a variety of ways
and grow as we also continue to learn and grow ourselves.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Jonas Löwgren writes:  My last question was about conceptual tools for
articulation. Your reply referred mainly to tools/techniques for
articulating design ideas.

However, I was thinking also of language constructs for talking about
what constitutes good interaction. The way I see it, this is one of
the main elements of interaction design expertise (the "experience"
we talked about earlier in this thread) and my personal approach is to
try and articulate so-called experiential qualities to try and create
a language in which experienced designers can express and communicate
parts of their judgment skills.

A:
We have a lot of terms and concepts that fit this description. 
We've not formally compiled them (just something we don't have time
to do in the manner it would require).  They serve to label concepts
and patterns associated with hierarchical and interrelational
structure, navigational behaviors, states or situations that should
be avoided (in general), and many more.  Because we're always using
these in context of examples (perhaps numerous examples), they're
easier to grasp.

I would be very interested to hear your examples.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Angel Marquez]

Question:
Shouldn't the project (client | team) dictate the approach (agile,
waterfall, top down, bottom up, side to side, wax the floor & whatever the
hell RED is)?

If you are providing a service for a variety of clients and depending on the
nature of the project shouldn't you as a team be able to shift into
different approaches smoothly at any given moment. Ramp up Agile, Production
Waterfall, Ramp Down Genius because by then everyone should be an expert

I didn't read any of the thread; so, I might be way off base.

Happy Friday!

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Gabby  wrote:

> The core problem of this entire thread is that Mr. Leftwich did not
> truly post an item for discussion--rather, he posted a long and
> inscrutable essay that would have been better housed on (say) a
> personal blog.
>
> I do believe that we have been used as a testing ground for a future
> article submission.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Gabby]

The core problem of this entire thread is that Mr. Leftwich did not
truly post an item for discussion--rather, he posted a long and
inscrutable essay that would have been better housed on (say) a
personal blog. 

I do believe that we have been used as a testing ground for a future
article submission. 


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

So, while I appreciate Jim's attempt to explain what kind of  
activities good designers practice, I'd really like to see the whole  
"RED" term live only for a brief moment as an anomaly on this list.


Dammit!

Why couldn't I have said that??

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks  Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Andrei Herasimchuk]

I was trying to stay away, but I feel compelled to interject a few  
thoughts here.


The term "RED" is horrid. Why we (the collective we here) feel the  
need to first create artifice like "rapid expert design" and then get  
a bit too clever by then converting those terms to acronyms that read  
as words I'll never know. But I got turned off in the discussion a  
long time before simply because of the labeling.


Terms like this tend to be meaningless in the long run. Largely  
because they unjustly redefine things that had already been defined  
more than appropriately in the past. My favorite conversations these  
days are the ones that go like:


"So, how do you go about doing this? This design thing."

"Oh. We follow a strict UCD methodology."

"UCD?"

"User Centered Design."

"I see... but what about what the technology back-end? Isn't how the  
servers and pipes and all the coding that connects it part of your  
analysis?"


"Absolutely!"

"But that's not about the user. That's about technology. What does  
'user centered' mean then?"


"Oh. Part of UCD is studying the technology. And even the business  
needs. It's all UCD!"


"Um. Ok. Well, let's move on then..."

At some point, UCD becomes shorthand for what you should have been  
doing as a designer all along. And when people in organizations attach  
or put labels to such basic, fundamental things, in my opinion, it  
weakens the credibility of the organization and it's participants  
since they seem to be actively promoting the fact that they didn't  
know better in the first place.


My take on this whole RED conversation is somewhat similar to UCD.  
I've long practiced doing my work in many of the same ways as Jim has  
described. But I was taught that those sorts of things were just basic  
and fundamental to how designers act. I was taught these things first  
in my days of set and lightening design in the theater, but I was also  
taught this early on in my conversion to Graphic Design. When moving  
over to Interface Design, I just brought those lessons over from other  
design professions since there was little information on what the  
whole thing was outside of reading Inside Macintosh. Things like,  
listening to the design lead, lots of iterative sketching, lots of  
prototyping and building, relying on cold hard experience to get past  
the low hanging fruit on a project quickly, taking accountability for  
one's own design work made with their own two hands, soliciting  
feedback from the very people who will use your product for their  
daily work, grouping up with engineers to better understand how the  
engine is architected and built so it's clear what is and is not  
possible, understanding what the person who pays your check needs and  
expects out of the design and engineering team, writing detailed  
specifications of everything about the design and engineering of the  
product, selling the solution to executives and making sure they agree  
with the course of the design, etc.


Now, do I think Jim is actively trying to weaken the practice of  
interface or software design by creating a label like RED? No. My own  
personal conspiracy theory is that he did so because that's what  
people on this list do. They seem to make up jargon for things that  
don't need it. These terms only serve to act as exclusionary barriers  
for people getting into the field and makes us seem like aliens to  
those we work with on the job. It's been part of the tech sector's  
design practice history for a while now and it must stop, in my  
opinion. HCI, UX, GUI, IA, UCD etc. Give it a rest already please.  
Given my conversations with Jim in the past, I've never known him to  
resort to this shorthanded way of describing or discussing something,  
so I have to feel that the inertia of the group may have lead him down  
this path. I hope he backs up a little and rethinks putting RED into  
play in the profession.


Why? Because the term seems like nothing more than shorthand for  
describing how a good designer BEHAVES. The things Jim describes are  
the habits that good designers learn over time, and simply become part  
of day to day life in the trenches. Just like anyone who practices a  
craft, there are things you do and that become ingrained into your  
blood as a matter of getting the work done.


But those habits are not codified recipes or step-by-step processes.

Designers have a process. Designers don't use a process.

So, while I appreciate Jim's attempt to explain what kind of  
activities good designers practice, I'd really like to see the whole  
"RED" term live only for a brief moment as an anomaly on this list.


--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. and...@involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe .

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jarod Tang]

Hi Jared,

> I like the name Genius Design because it means I'll never resort to it. But
> I have met people in my travels who were capable of seeing and solving
> problems without any research that took me years of research to uncover.
> Those people are true geniuses in my mind.
If one designer can come up with a good design, he should be a expert
for target domain. This may means himself already in the domain for
enough time, or if he's fresh, he pay for it by design research.
If "solving problems without any research that took me years of
research to uncover", it may means he understands domain very well
before design while you are not, but this cant tell he's genius or
not.
And indeed there's great designer who can design effectively, but that
doesn't mean he can design without insight of the domain, instead,
this means he's capable of grasping the spirit in very effective way.
>From this means, i prefer the expertise design instead of genius
design. Genius is a description of the possible people instead of
process or method.

Regards,
Jarod

-- 
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Chris Whelan]

What does RED stand for again?  Redundant Email Debating?


--- On Fri, 1/30/09, Dave Malouf  wrote:

> From: Dave Malouf 
> 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Dave Malouf]

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jonas Löwgren]

Jim,

Thanks a lot for your comprehensive and clear answers. I believe they  
may add a lot more flesh on the RED bones also for other list members.


Personally, I simply support more or less everything you do. Seems to  
me like your shop is pretty much an example of interaction design  
best-practice in terms of practicum learning.


Your practices also agree to a great extent with my experiences from  
teaching interaction design in a studio setting.


Just a couple of suggestions -- points where I feel you could perhaps  
benefit from taking the scaffolding a little further.




When you talk about debriefing and knowledge sharing after projects,  
you largely refer to documentation and substantial discussion of  
design artifacts.


I would imagine that there is learning leverage to be gained from a  
meta-level debriefing session where the design process as such is  
replayed, analyzed, hypothetically improved upon. All this also done  
in a master/apprentice model, of course, where seniors would do most  
of the analysis and tutor the juniors into gradually doing it  
themselves.




My last question was about conceptual tools for articulation. Your  
reply referred mainly to tools/techniques for articulating design ideas.


However, I was thinking also of language constructs for talking about  
what constitutes good interaction. The way I see it, this is one of  
the main elements of interaction design expertise (the "experience"  
we talked about earlier in this thread) and my personal approach is  
to try and articulate so-called experiential qualities to try and  
create a language in which experienced designers can express and  
communicate parts of their judgment skills.


(I have a few examples in case you are interested.)

-

Again, thanks for a very interesting account of your practice! (Could  
I come and work for you in case I get tired of academia? ;-)


Jonas Löwgren


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

My responses to Jonas Löwgren (Part 2 of 2):

Q:
Do you work systematically with product reviews and criticism in your
teams?

A:
Yes, absolutely.  We all constantly test and play with all manners of
things.  We pass things around and take turns trying out things.  And
we talk constantly about these things.  Knowing about how things work
and behave is our lifeblood.  We also keep abreast of a number of
industry and market trends and track a number of competitive fields. 
We don't do this formally.  We do this informally and constantly.

We also pay attention to our initial observations and first
impressions of things we analyze.  Contrary to the often-repeated
warning that we're somehow not "regular people," we often discuss
the importance of being able to understand and empathize with the
non-expert lay user, and I believe it's possible for designers to
develop that empathy and ability.  It really is possible to put
oneself in the shoes of a range of users.  It's partly the lifelong
job of good designers to be astute observers of people, and pay
attention to them when they're using many kinds of things.  A good
deal, and perhaps a huge majority of what makes all manners of things
easily usable are common, not specific.  There are qualities that can
be imbued in any interactive design, whether a product, software,
service, or system that will benefit users.  Easy to recognize and
learn patterns, minimal navigational load, and dozens of other things
we see again and again across many projects.

We have many years of experience in designing small devices and
systems, and playing with existing products along with our own which
we've had become real, have taught us a lot.  We look for
opportunities to transmit this to our junior associates in as many
ways as we can.

We also do a lot of critiques of our iterative designs.  We certainly
do walkthroughs of our designs periodically to keep everyone in synch.
 This is necessary because there are times we'll go off and work on
certain portions of a project and we'll periodically come together
to integrate and reconcile our patterns and interrelationships for
consistency and simplification.  Our goal is the most minimal and
fully functional elegance, with the fewest elemental archetypes and
interactions.

I've done this alone, and it simply takes longer.  Multiple
designers can power through a lot of options and alternatives much
faster, if they're practiced at doing this and working productively
together.  There are certain co-consultants I work with where we
speak in a dense shorthand, and can work through incredibly complex 
problems and solution spaces quite quickly because we share a very
extensive language of concepts, models, and shared experiences.

Q:
Do you have procedures for debriefing and knowledge sharing after
project milestones and completions?

A:
Yes.  We generally compile a lot of documentation from our projects. 
This is then reviewable and can be compared to the same from other
projects.  We also often have real production embodiments to work
with at certain milestones, so we pound on that pretty extensively,
and will often grab people nearby to do the same, noting their
feedback.  More often than not, our designs work as we assumed they
would.  We use feedback to tweak the results.  I don't recall ever
having to start over, or make a drastic change of course.  Our paper
design process leads to strong confidence of how things will work,
and we work close enough with engineers (either on our team or with
clients) to know that the behavior can be achieved as we intend
before we move forward.

Q:
How are you working with conceptual tools for articulation of
practical knowing, such as patterns or experiential qualities?

A:
We use a combination of the type of paper maps, flows, and
element-perfect (and later pixel perfect or CAD-perfect) specs along
with copious narrative descriptions and creative ad hoc use of
metaphors.  Our discussions are actually very much like strings of
mixed metaphors, and this is a great aid in expressing complex and
interrelated concepts .

It's actually here where I think language is a very imporant skill
and talent for RED practitioners.  Some of the best RED practitioners
I've known came from writing and film backgrounds, which is not
surprising.  They understand flow and narrative, which are both
important components of effective interaction design.

Interaction design, unlike industrial design, graphic design, or
building architecture, is difficult if not impossible to "capture"
in an image or text description.  The quality of any interaction
design (beyond what's in the minds of the designers), must be used
and discovered by others.  We've found that some designers are much
better at grasping and growing in interaction design skill.  There
are some young designers that after one project I know for certain
that there is a very valuable master designer within them, waiting to
evolve.  Discovering this, is without a dou

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Jonas Löwgren writes:  "However, there is at least one question I
would like to ask Jim from within a traditional-design perspective.

A general problem in developing design ability is the relative
inefficiency of the learning process. Apprenticing and peripheral
participation is the most common strategy and it generally takes a
long time to reach expert levels of experience and performance.

Does the RED approach contain any provisions for increasing the pace
of learning? Do you work systematically with product reviews and
criticism in your teams? Do you have procedures for debriefing and
knowledge sharing after project milestones and completions? How are
you working with conceptual tools for articulation of practical
knowing, such as patterns or experiential qualities?

I can't seem to find any references to learning and scaffolding of
expertise development in your posts so far."

My responses to Jonas Löwgren (Part 1 of 2):

Jonas makes some very thoughtful observations and raises a number of
important questions.  These are very helpful in delving deeper.

Q:
Does the RED approach contain any provisions for increasing the pace
of learning?

A:
In the same way that Marine Basic Training produces a lot of physical
and mental conditioning in a relatively short time frame, so do the
crucibles of RED consulting projects present young apprentice
designers with much larger demands than are found in typical
structured corporate settings.  There are always, in the projects
I've been involved with and that I've observed, frequent group
review and brainstorming and whiteboarding.  It's very important
that the thought processes of the seniors take place in front of and
in collaboration with the junior members (if a team setting).  Often
projects will begin with the review (individually and as a group) of
an existing product, software, service, or system.  Seniors usually
start out by establishing (from experience) some starting directions
and ideas, and using this as an opportunity to explain in depth past
similar experiences and designs.  We will often as part of this
process bring out extensive past project documentation and show what
parts may be similar, what aspects may differ, and discuss in great
depth the lessons learned.

Dialog is constant with young designers.  In our experience, some
young designers merely watch and take direction to begin with.  As
time goes on, it's also common for particular talents and
capabilities to emerge, and those are reinforced and used as part of
how we divvy up the developmental responsibilities.

Junior teammembers are compelled to defend their ideas, and I believe
the best master designers are very respectful toward these, and seek
to draw them out and challenge them to both think bigger at times,
and other times focus in.

RED projects are like gyms.  Designers that work on them are
exercised in their skills, and in broad-based consultancies, they're
exposed to a wide range of products, software, services, and systems. 
So it's like cross-training.  RED apprentices, junior designers,
associates, and seniors are always stretching and pushing.  Because
the situations and environments that RED tackles require a lot be
accomplished in a short period of time.  (Actually, over the past
twenty years, the average time frame of a design project has steadily
and dramatically shortened.  However the complexity of the projects
has often grown larger.  In other words, many projects seem nearly
impossible.  This is where RED goes to work and succeeds - in our
documented experiences.)

It is my opinion and observation that designers who work with
experienced RED practitioners and teams grow faster and more broadly
and integrative in their skills and experiences than they might in
other, more constrained, structured, managed and process-oriented
design environments.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jonas Löwgren]

Religions, tribes or mindsets -- either way, I think this discussion  
is digging its way towards one of the deepest issues in interaction  
design: Personal vs impersonal.


Traditional design disciplines have had some 100 years (or much  
longer, if we consider architecture) to grow systems of practice and  
education from the root assumption of design ability as something  
personal. Hence portfolios, master/apprentice learning, criticism,  
and so on.


Human-computer interaction, which forms the other main intellectual  
tradition of interaction design, started out in the late 70s as a  
scientific endeavor based in experimental psychology and engineering  
science. Here, design is necessarily impersonal. The focus is on  
acquiring general knowledge and communicating it in methods,  
guidelines, etc.


Interaction design practitioners, scholars and teachers are feeling  
the effects of this mongrel heritage every day. Yet it is not always  
articulated as clearly as in the recent discussion on RED.




Quite a bit of the discussion on RED seems to consist of HCI-type  
questions being asked to a traditional-design-based approach. I am  
not sure we can expect a lot of progress from that kind of  
discussion. Indeed, some participants now seem to dismiss the thread  
as a religious war.


However, there is at least one question I would like to ask Jim from  
within a traditional-design perspective.


A general problem in developing design ability is the relative  
inefficiency of the learning process. Apprenticing and peripheral  
participation is the most common strategy and it generally takes a  
long time to reach expert levels of experience and performance.


Does the RED approach contain any provisions for increasing the pace  
of learning? Do you work systematically with product reviews and  
criticism in your teams? Do you have procedures for debriefing and  
knowledge sharing after project milestones and completions? How are  
you working with conceptual tools for articulation of practical  
knowing, such as patterns or experiential qualities?


I can't seem to find any references to learning and scaffolding of  
expertise development in your posts so far.


Jonas Löwgren

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Angel Marquez]

Roger that

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Jared Spool  wrote:

>
> On Jan 29, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:
>
>  To downplay the designer and team skills involved in being able to
>> undertake these projects with a great deal of success, and the way in
>> which RED practice made this possible, is to miss the entire point.
>>
>> We don't place our primary focus on terminology and process.  We
>> focus on how effectively we can, though acquired skill, visualize the
>> dynamic elements, interrelationships, and associated interactions of
>> function and usage in the probems we're approaching.  This isn't
>> done through reductionistic methodology.  RED makes use of a range of
>> tools to augment designer understanding, insight, and patterned
>> problem solving.
>>
>
> Amen, Brother!
>
>
> 
> 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 29, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:


To downplay the designer and team skills involved in being able to
undertake these projects with a great deal of success, and the way in
which RED practice made this possible, is to miss the entire point.

We don't place our primary focus on terminology and process.  We
focus on how effectively we can, though acquired skill, visualize the
dynamic elements, interrelationships, and associated interactions of
function and usage in the probems we're approaching.  This isn't
done through reductionistic methodology.  RED makes use of a range of
tools to augment designer understanding, insight, and patterned
problem solving.


Amen, Brother!


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

I think everything I and my co-designers have done in our careers have
been about creating the very best and ambitiously successful products,
software, and systems in the shortest period of time and in the most
efficient way - as opposed to belief systems or dogma.  Our methods
are not random, mysterious, secret, nor willy-nilly.  There is
actually a great deal of consistency in our approach, use of design
tools, and thoroughness of deliverables and implementation success.

To downplay the designer and team skills involved in being able to
undertake these projects with a great deal of success, and the way in
which RED practice made this possible, is to miss the entire point.

We don't place our primary focus on terminology and process.  We
focus on how effectively we can, though acquired skill, visualize the
dynamic elements, interrelationships, and associated interactions of
function and usage in the probems we're approaching.  This isn't
done through reductionistic methodology.  RED makes use of a range of
tools to augment designer understanding, insight, and patterned
problem solving.

If designers are happy and successful using the types of
methodologies that have gotten a lot of exposure and discussion, then
that's absolutely great.  RED is it's own philsophy and practice,
not a reactionary response to other approaches.

In other words, there's no inherent conflict as far as I can see. 
At least I'm not here to discuss issues with other approaches to
design.  I'm here to describe how RED is practiced, and describe the
kinds of environments in which it's uniquely suited to produce
effective results in a wide variety of situations and circumstances
(big change needed or complex project, with little time and/or
constrained resources).

This covers an awful lot of real world situations in need of
excellent and effective design.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

I think everything I and my co-designers have done in our careers have
been about creating the very best and ambitiously successful products,
software, and systems in the shortest period of time and in the most
efficient way - as opposed to belief systems or dogma.  Our methods
are not random, mysterious, secret, nor willy-nilly.  There is
actually a great deal of consistency in our approach, use of design
tools, and thoroughness of deliverables and implementation success.

To downplay the designer and team skills involved in being able to
undertake these projects with a great deal of success, and the way in
which RED practice made this possible, is to miss the entire point.

We don't place our primary focus on terminology and process.  We
focus on how effectively we can, though acquired skill, visualize the
dynamic elements, interrelationships, and associated interactions of
function and usage in the probems we're approaching.  This isn't
done through reductionistic methodology.  RED makes use of a range of
tools to augment designer understanding, insight, and patterned
problem solving.

If designers are happy and successful using the types of
methodologies that have gotten a lot of exposure and discussion, then
that's absolutely great.  RED is it's own philsophy and practice,
not a reactionary response to other approaches.

In other words, there's no inherent conflict as far as I can see. 
At least I'm not here to discuss issues with other approaches to
design.  I'm here to describe how RED is practiced, and describe the
kinds of environments in which it's uniquely suited to produce
effective results in a wide variety of situations and circumstances
(big change needed or complex project, with little time and/or
constrained resources).

This covers an awful lot of real world situations in need of
excellent and effective design.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Liz, we absolutley make use of scenarios.  We've done this in-depth
in projects where we were developing OS-level frameworks for mobile
phones (i.e.: not simply single apps, but OS frameworks for all
subsequent common interface elements and interactions for associated
apps).  These include both types of users as well as types of tasks
or goals.

It varies from project to project how incorporate this into the
project beyond pantomiming in order to test our assumptions during
the development of interactional architecture, interrelationships,
archetypal elements, and flows.  We have included these in
deliverables in order to contextually explain how certain needs will
be served, and sometimes it's just how we speed up our own thinking
and decision-making.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

[Sorry, Yury. Spelled your name wrong the first time.]

On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Dave Malouf wrote:


Awe! Jared, that was a tad harsh, even for you. ;-)


All I can say is, it's been a long journey. :)


As a zealot in my own right, I respect belief. And belief's can be
described, and any belief worth's it salt can be evangelized (i.e.
taught) in many ways.



I have nothing against belief or zealotry.

My point was more that Jim is asking me to accept his belief, on  
faith, that there is something to RED that is different than the  
standard way we design. And I'm not there yet.


The way he and Yury describes it is tribal. You have to be in the  
tribe. Not everyone is in the tribe. People not in the tribe don't  
"get it."


To me, it's still smart-and-experienced-people-doing-good-work. Other  
than that, I don't "get it."


So, I must not be in the tribe. I don't have the faith.

I have no problem with his tribe or faith. I'm just not there.

That's all I'm trying to say. Sorry if it sounded harsh.

Jared

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Dave Malouf wrote:


Awe! Jared, that was a tad harsh, even for you. ;-)


All I can say is, it's been a long journey. :)


As a zealot in my own right, I respect belief. And belief's can be
described, and any belief worth's it salt can be evangelized (i.e.
taught) in many ways.



I have nothing against belief or zealotry.

My point was more that Jim is asking me to accept his belief, on  
faith, that there is something to RED that is different than the  
standard way we design. And I'm not there yet.


The way he and Yuri describes it is tribal. You have to be in the  
tribe. Not everyone is in the tribe. People not in the tribe don't  
"get it."


To me, it's still smart-and-experienced-people-doing-good-work. Other  
than that, I don't "get it."


So, I must not be in the tribe. I don't have the faith.

I have no problem with his tribe or faith. I'm just not there.

That's all I'm trying to say. Sorry if it sounded harsh.

Jared




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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Dave Malouf]

Awe! Jared, that was a tad harsh, even for you. ;-)
As a zealot in my own right, I respect belief. And belief's can be
described, and any belief worth's it salt can be evangelized (i.e.
taught) in many ways.
-- 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Dave Malouf]

Jim, its funny that you wrote this now. When I was speaking to my
students today, I didn't use the same phrase you did, but I said I
was really having trouble with the conversation b/c there was
definitely a "you are from Mars, i am from Venus" dynamic going on
here.

your descriptions are getting clearer which is hopeful to the
conversation. I'm glad we are getting a chance to push you to try
and translate what you do, think so that it can be articulated among
the tribe.

I still find it very problematic that your rhetoric is basically
saying, "I can't tell you what the Matrix is, i can only show
you." For someone such as much from Venus, this is very difficult to
swallow, but I'm seeing more glimpses through the dense fog here
among the 2nd planet.

I did say some stuff that I didn't see responses to that I'd like
to understand more of.

1st, when I say "just", that isn't to devalue it, but to express a
simplification, or a sense of "Oh! this isn't as complicated as I
thought it is." But obviously, you responded by thinking that it is
indeed very complex, but still with no way of expressing that
complexity other than to say, a) it is complex; b) i can't explain
how; and c) only experience can guide you.

2nd I asked about the 3 phases and I tried to reflect that in my
understanding of them they sound like standard (is that better than
"just") design practice found at most every studio I've worked in
or had as a consultant, except there were 2 or three distinct
deliverables or action or thought processes missing. a) a distinct
iterative ideation process (usually filled with sketching, separate
from model prototypes in the Buxton sense of it); and b) a foundation
of articulated strategy which is bound in narrative (much like Liz is
alluding to with scenario development, but there are other methods to
developing narratives).

Again, in the midst of a pretty standard ID education system that
does teach thinking, judgetment, creativity skills over standard rote
methodologies, I get what you are saying. So the I'm left thinknig
that the rapid had specific requirements that envalue the expert, and
the expert needs a system around it to build a team with (thus the
apprenticeship model of education). lastly, in design scenarios where
the projects are longer (on end of months or years) these methods are
not quite as practical, but the standard (from my minds eye) design
practices still apply and can be easily expanded upon and even useful
for adding more observed experiences to use as a muscle tool for when
the rapid is required again. Or are you saying that rapid is always
in play and if it isn't rapid it is just plain wasteful and possibly
detrimental to the results/outcomes of the projects?

-- 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 29, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:


RED is, indeed and primarily, focused *on* the skills and
experienced-gained judgement of its practitioners, and not on any
particular methodology (as many are employed in ad hoc and
overlapping manners, according to the potentially wide variance of
situation and project being pursued).


As is Scientology and Amway. (And Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism,  
Judaism, Islamism, Trader Joesism, and Pythonism.)


Jim, I think I've got it now. It sounds like you've got religion.  
That's great. It looks good on you.


I'm what our new President refers to as a "non-believer".

I respect your right to worship in a way that works for you.

I think that's where I come out in this discussion.

Jared



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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Dave Malouf]

Hi Yury, yup, I'm sorry for my assumptions. Your writing of the
biz/dev complaints sounded like from an innie perspective, and not
the fix-it man who comes in later.

The reason you were asked to come in was not b/c of the failings of
other methods, but b/c of the failings of the teams who executed
them. Your methods worked. GREAT! But that is probably b/c of You and
not necessarily comparative to the methods.

I have gone into many an org as an innie and gotten great results by
applying context-initiatived user-centered methodologies built on a
solid foundation of observation before design. Did it happen over
night? HELL NO! But I worked within the communication culture of
those organizations evangalizing and taking small steps before big
steps often on my own time and initiative, proving results, gaining
respect and understanding, teaching stakeholders and including them
along the way so that my methods were completely transparent and
eventually were points of collaboration.

So that was the basis for my reaction. I'm not saying you don't
kick-ass. I'm sure you do. But I was challenging your observation as
a manifestation of a broader and otherwise different problem than the
one you are stating to substantiate the value of your practice
overall.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Elizabeth Bacon]

Hi Jim,  

If you have a second, I have a question about your experience of RED.
To what extent do you & your team utilize scenarios as a rapid
prototyping tool? 

Question also extended to Yury and others who've practiced or do
practice the RED approach. 

Cheers,
Liz

P.S. My bias is that scenarios are indispensible for RED even if
there's no good or direct user research to utilize. 

P.P.S. For the record, I *much* prefer this term to Genius Design,
which is far too pejorative & pretentious sounding. Hey, maybe we can
get Dan Saffer to adjust the term in his upcoming revision of
"designing for interaction"! ;) 


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Yury Frolov|Studio Asterisk*]

Jees... Dave,
I wrote about the RED context in my very first comment - please  
revisit...


BTW - to avoid putting my words in anybody's mouth I try to add  
"IMHO", " in my understanding" (as often as it's tolerable for  
readers).. shall I add it to every sentence???

I believe Jim will correct me if need be...

You also seem to have quite a few assumptions about our experience. I  
am talking of the experiences of small design firm that has been  
around the Valley since 1997. Enough time to see patterns of client- 
designer relationships and see outcomes of ours and somebody else's  
project work.
When I talk about the frustrated VPs and CTOs -- they described their  
previous experiences with some practitioners - after we started  
working with them we've been successful enough to keep these clients  
for years.


Can you please elaborate on "cultural problems "? Not sure am getting  
it...



On Jan 29, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Dave Malouf wrote:


Yea, I have to agree with Todd,

It sounds more like cultural problems and with execution issues. Of
course a closet filled with materials is an issue, and if you are
looking at 100's of data points, well then that is a HUGE execution
problem anyway for most projects.

Here's my concern with what you are saying Yury. It sounds like you
are resonating with what Jim says, b/c you are in pain of what
you've seen from the other side. But Jim is being quite specific
about the proper context for the methods he uses as well as for the
scale and scope of those methods. I feel you are putting "words in
his mouth" to his actual disadvantage without much experience with
what he's actually done or how's he done it.

The work environment you mention (been there, done that, change it)
is not uncommon, but also is not a given. 90% of applying UX in
tech-centric environments in evangelism and in these environments in
particular the real datapoints that are derived from observation of
users (pick a method) are even that much more important to maintain,
and consider and figure out how to bring along the biz/engineering
sides into the process instead of presenting to them from the
outside. It sounds like you just have a lot of work to do.

-- 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Part 1 of 2:

First, I'd like to acknowledge the many exellent points made by
Jonas Löwgren above.  His grasp on where I'm coming from here is
both astute, and also was a great help (along with reading the
responses of several others) in gaining a better insight as to where
there's a significant disconnect in our understandings of the
related issues.

RED is, indeed and primarily, focused *on* the skills and
experienced-gained judgement of its practitioners, and not on any
particular methodology (as many are employed in ad hoc and
overlapping manners, according to the potentially wide variance of
situation and project being pursued).

The biggest "aha" moment for me was when I finally saw comments
here to the effect of, "Well, it simply appears that you're just
talking about good design being done by competent designers"

Ha!  It's *exactly* at this juncture where the perpendicular nature
of the two mindsets cross.  "Just"

RED is primarily the philosophy, approach, and style of practice
(crucible) in which designers capable of working successfully in
complex projects in very rapid timeframes can be developed.

Any RED practitioners, and I would suggest that many (despite Dave's
assessment) designers practice some form of RED, and particularly
consultancies, would recognize that there is no trivial "just" in
becoming proficient in doing complex design and development rapidly.

I had stated early on that RED is not one of the traditional
reductionistic methodologies that attempt to take the designer
(individual and their capabilities) out of the equation.

This is also why RED will *never* be able to be taught in seminars
and described in simplistic terms in books, etc..  This is also why
RED resonates with people who are engaged in RED-like practices and
experiences, and seems to be completely opaque to those who are more
focused on non-personal methodologies and repeatable generalities.

The disagreement in this thread comes not from an argument within the
same frame or terms.  The disagrement here is primarily between those
practitioners, like those of us engaged in RED, which have developed
actual real world project-based crucibles in which we, along with
team members, conduct our products and grow (individually and as
teams) in our ability to do the same.

If I could summarize this perpendicular paradigm clash, it would be
this:

Process-focused designers and designer observers focus on those
aspects of formalized process that, under conditions where they're
possible, provide tools and means for designers of a wide range of
types and skill levels to conduct structured practice.  Furthermore
they recognize the importance of individual skill and ability, but
separate this from the methodologies they consider key.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Dave Malouf]

Yea, I have to agree with Todd,

It sounds more like cultural problems and with execution issues. Of
course a closet filled with materials is an issue, and if you are
looking at 100's of data points, well then that is a HUGE execution
problem anyway for most projects.

Here's my concern with what you are saying Yury. It sounds like you
are resonating with what Jim says, b/c you are in pain of what
you've seen from the other side. But Jim is being quite specific
about the proper context for the methods he uses as well as for the
scale and scope of those methods. I feel you are putting "words in
his mouth" to his actual disadvantage without much experience with
what he's actually done or how's he done it.

The work environment you mention (been there, done that, change it)
is not uncommon, but also is not a given. 90% of applying UX in
tech-centric environments in evangelism and in these environments in
particular the real datapoints that are derived from observation of
users (pick a method) are even that much more important to maintain,
and consider and figure out how to bring along the biz/engineering
sides into the process instead of presenting to them from the
outside. It sounds like you just have a lot of work to do.

-- 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Todd Zaki Warfel]

On Jan 29, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Yury Frolov|Studio Asterisk* wrote:

As to being dramatic - well, sorry... I am a bit passionate about  
all this because it's hard to hear red-faced engineering and biz  
managers slamming UI design practices as "not working", "we don't  
know what to do with this paper" kind of comments year over year...


That doesn't sound like a problem with the methods, but rather the  
implementation of the method and the artifacts.


To be frank, most of the artifacts I've seen produced are junk, crap,  
they stink. If I have to spend 30 minutes explaining the sitemap to  
you, then either the model is broken, or my artifact isn't designed  
properly. Isn't the point of an artifact to add clarification and  
traceability? If it's clouding things, then you should rethink it.



Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
--
Contact Info
Voice:  (215) 825-7423
Email:  t...@messagefirst.com
AIM:twar...@mac.com
Blog:   http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter:zakiwarfel
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.




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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Yury Frolov|Studio Asterisk*]

Dave, seems like we are talking past each other. I am NOT talking  
about UX/Agile methods here either.


As to reality - my fellow team members and I must have been dreaming  
shuffling through volumes of UI-related research, UI evaluations,  
usability reports, UI improvement recommendations  etc. that went  
nowhere and gather dust in some cubicles... again - it's no like the  
work was bad...  it just ..  err... did not work???  IMHO - due to  
the nature of many tech SW firms they needed a complete, fast and  
affordable process, not just bits and pieces of good work or volumes  
of exhaustive research that arrive when all release dates are past  
due...


I think that it's been already said enough that RED (at least in my  
understanding) is not rejecting any established design methods be it  
research, user interviews, persona creation etc., etc. RED team  
approaches it all from a specific angle, like: what do we know about  
this particular domain, problem, design challenge? how much research  
is needed? do we really need to conduct 25 (50, 100?) interviews ,  
would 12 enough? 8? 6? In what form these findings should be  
presented to client? is it 100 page report? is it 1 page diagram? a  
flash movie? In what format this particular client will be able to  
understand presented information easier, share among themselves? Same  
for persona creation - how deep, how detailed etc These are  
expert judgement decisions made in a context of a particular client/ 
project guided by this single goal: to produce a final (acceptable- 
good-great) implementable design - and i repeat - on time, on budget.


As to being dramatic - well, sorry... I am a bit passionate about all  
this because it's hard to hear red-faced engineering and biz managers  
slamming UI design practices as "not working", "we don't know what to  
do with this paper" kind of comments year over year... May be they  
are all niche managers from niche companies like McAfee and Applied  
Materials?... don't know ...



On Jan 29, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Dave Malouf wrote:


Yury, I've been reading your messages and it is great that "you get
it", but lease!

We are NOT talking about UX/Agile methods here that many in the
valley are moving towards and please don't put out overly dramatic
generalizations or sub-positions that have no basis in reality. MOST
design works in the Valley are still heavily invested in standard UX
methods if they have ANY design at all. There are few name-orgs that
are using RED as their sole or even primary mode of operating from
what I've seen.

Further, it is just really unclear what RED is beyond experienced
designers using their experience to short-cut the rest of the system.
A valid practice, but really far from a method that one can profess as
profound.

So I stand by my "niche" sentiment since there are so few people
who can even call themselves experienced enough for such a method.
With over 15 years of IxD work under my belt, i would only do
"genius" design when I had to, but would still always choose a
truer UCD process that employed context-based research over using
2ndary sources and my gut. And further as a designer, i find it hard
to not have a strong ideation and strategy setting part of the
framework and methods that I use regardless of ability to do
research.

-- 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Dave Malouf]

Yury, I've been reading your messages and it is great that "you get
it", but lease!

We are NOT talking about UX/Agile methods here that many in the
valley are moving towards and please don't put out overly dramatic
generalizations or sub-positions that have no basis in reality. MOST
design works in the Valley are still heavily invested in standard UX
methods if they have ANY design at all. There are few name-orgs that
are using RED as their sole or even primary mode of operating from
what I've seen.

Further, it is just really unclear what RED is beyond experienced
designers using their experience to short-cut the rest of the system.
A valid practice, but really far from a method that one can profess as
profound.

So I stand by my "niche" sentiment since there are so few people
who can even call themselves experienced enough for such a method.
With over 15 years of IxD work under my belt, i would only do
"genius" design when I had to, but would still always choose a
truer UCD process that employed context-based research over using
2ndary sources and my gut. And further as a designer, i find it hard
to not have a strong ideation and strategy setting part of the
framework and methods that I use regardless of ability to do
research.

-- 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Yury Frolov|Studio Asterisk*]

On Jan 29, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Dave Malouf wrote:
Our (and now my) new observation of RED fits along the "special
opps" line. Jim seems to be creating a "niche" market for his
consultancy/practice similar to the special opps. 
... What we mean by this is that it feels like "design".


Excuse me... but ... "niche"??? After meeting with hundreds of tech  
companies (big and small) here in the Silicon Valley (and a few  
across the globe) I know that this RED "approach/method/thingy" is  
the only chance for these companies to get their products designed  
competently, on time, on budget, fit the design phases into their  
tight dev cycle and release the product ...


Interestingly, it seems like some people immediately get what Jim is  
talking about and for others no amount of explanation makes any  
sense. I suspect that since RED makes enormous impact on the business  
side of things - particularly on the client side - the value (and the  
very existence) of such a phenomenon will remain questionable for  
designers who are not exposed to those kind of conversations ...


May be it is just "design" - but practiced in very specific manner  
that keeps clients coming back for more 



-

Yury Frolov
Design Director, Studio Asterisk*

GUI Strategy | User Experience | Brand

415 374 7478 voice
702 446 7840 fax

www.studioasterisk.com



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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 28, 2009, at 11:38 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:


I doubt that all of those teams, including the unsuccessful ones you
mentioned, approached things from very diverse and experienced
backgrounds, with expertise in designing a wide range of development
factors successfully.  I also doubt that those efforts have involved
teams producing pixel-perfect and behavioral-rule-perfect
specification blueprints, as we've done.



Actually, pixel-perfect and behavioral-rule-perfect specifications of  
crappy designs are created every day.


So, from what I read in what you've written, what separates the teams  
that succeed from the teams that fail are the people, their diversity,  
and their experience.


In fact, you could probably take the same group of intelligent,  
diverse, experienced people, have them stand in a corner, wear pink  
hats, chant 17th Century Romanian Love Poems, while typing on keyboard  
with their toes, and still get better designs than many organizations  
out there.


Good design starts with good designers. There's no getting around that.


I believe what you're alluding to is actually a lack of adequate
architectural design.  The typical effort has been a cobbled-together
mash of engineering with a big of marketing icing smeared over the
top.  Almost nothing could be further from the RED practice I'm
describing.


Ok. But your description of the RED practice doesn't mandate adequate  
architectural design. As far as I've determined, there's nothing in  
your Philosophy/Approach/Method that ensures that's done, except the  
expertise of the team doing it.


So, what is the contribution of the RED practice to ensuring this is  
done?



And it's not as though there's no research.  It's just that the
research is conducted very quickly, and also involves extensively
pulling from any already-known body of knowledge at the client or in
the organization.


Which is based on the assumption that that research information is (a)  
readily available and (b) accurate. What does the RED practice do to  
ensure there aren't holes, the information is easy to attain, and,  
once collected, validates that it is in fact an accurate  
representation of user needs, goals, and contexts?



What I believe, from what I've experienced first hand and what I've
observed, is that experienced and broad-based RED practitioners and
small teams are capable, designer-for-designer/team-for-tem, of
producing more and superior products, in more conditions, in tighter
timeframes, for less cost, than any other method.  But that assumes
that the designers are both broadly talented and extensively
experienced.


EXACTLY MY POINT! Woo hoo!

Take away the talented and extensively experienced part, and the  
entire practice, as I understand it, falls apart.


Give those same talented and extensively experienced people another  
way to work, and they'll still produce good stuff.


In Stone Soup (obligatory Wikipedia citation: http://is.gd/hH3C), the  
stone isn't magic and doesn't really make soup. It justs gives the  
villagers the perception that it does. The important lesson from that  
fable is that the traveller doesn't actually believe in the stone's  
magical abilities.


RED to me sounds like Stone Soup. I'm sure your clients really believe  
you've created soup from a stone. And I believe you've created great  
soup. But I'm not seeing what the stone's contribution is.


Looking forward to seeing the magic revealed in Vancouver. :)

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks  Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Robert Hoekman Jr]

>
> I think my most recent post is about as detailed as I can get to a
> description of the components of the RED approach to design and
> development.
>

Well, then it sounds like nothing more than a name for a situation rather
than a methodology, approach, philosophy, or process. And I just don't see
how that's helpful.

-r-

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[mark schraad]

My take on RED, given what I have read is that it is a really compelling
story for prospective and current clients. I am not trying at all to
minimize it, but that's what I get out of what has been described so far.
Having talked to a number of consultants and studio heads over the years,
clients do want to know that you have a process and that you can show proven
results from you past work. Incidentally, they are no where near as
interested in the details of the process as we are, or as we hope they are.

btw - Jim... I commend your focus on results. This is incredibly important
to clients and most programs for design accolades skip over this part in
favor of beauty pageants and cool factor ratings (mostly because it is
hard). As a profession, this is the best way to build credibility. While
metrics for design are really hard (if not impossible) right now, it is
something we should be striving for.

I know that there is much behind the RED concept beyond marketing. But this
is what I see now... and am looking forward to further discussions and
disclosures.

Mark



On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Dave Malouf  wrote:

> Jonas, I really appreciate your ability for framing.
>
> My class here at SCAD (Interaction Minors in the Industrial Design
> Department) took a stab at re-reading Jim's 3 steps and here's what
> we came up with.
>
> It seems that what Jim is talking about is a fairly common discovery
> > Design > Document framework that they recognize quite easily and
> makes sense to them.
>
> We have been in contrast (mentioned in the other thread) thinking
> about frameworks for design noticed that the "rapid" nature of RED
> (a seemingly growingly important aspect of RED that has not been
> fully dealt with). But it seems that it is quite a definer here.
>
> What we saw were the following components missing:
> Time for an ideation period. At least, it is condensed dramatically
> and not mentioned as an important articulated aspect of the process.
> It seems that the "expert" part comes in here where "first" idea
> out of the research phase (and it seems there is one) is what is used
> for prototyping. And any iterating is about refining through
> validation (something that Dan refers to directly in the "Genius
> design" description).
>
> the other piece that seems missing is the strategic. There isn't an
> articulated framing of strategy, narrative and associated long term
> tactics.
>
> Our (and now my) new observation of RED fits along the "special
> opps" line. Jim seems to be creating a "niche" market for his
> consultancy/practice similar to the special opps. We can jump into
> any hot zone and get the job done quickly and efficiently. If you
> want proof, here is our body of work of success (the sell message).
> You don't need to know what/how we do our work, and you don't want
> to know, like velcro and the magic shammy.
>
> What we mean by this is that it feels like "design". Plain and
> simple and noted above, but it is framed and practiced in such a way
> that makes it practical and focused on such niche problem areas.
>
> Jim, is our reflection of our understanding improving? (more
> positive?)
>
> -- 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Dave Malouf]

Jonas, I really appreciate your ability for framing.

My class here at SCAD (Interaction Minors in the Industrial Design
Department) took a stab at re-reading Jim's 3 steps and here's what
we came up with.

It seems that what Jim is talking about is a fairly common discovery
> Design > Document framework that they recognize quite easily and
makes sense to them.

We have been in contrast (mentioned in the other thread) thinking
about frameworks for design noticed that the "rapid" nature of RED
(a seemingly growingly important aspect of RED that has not been
fully dealt with). But it seems that it is quite a definer here.

What we saw were the following components missing:
Time for an ideation period. At least, it is condensed dramatically
and not mentioned as an important articulated aspect of the process.
It seems that the "expert" part comes in here where "first" idea
out of the research phase (and it seems there is one) is what is used
for prototyping. And any iterating is about refining through
validation (something that Dan refers to directly in the "Genius
design" description).

the other piece that seems missing is the strategic. There isn't an
articulated framing of strategy, narrative and associated long term
tactics.

Our (and now my) new observation of RED fits along the "special
opps" line. Jim seems to be creating a "niche" market for his
consultancy/practice similar to the special opps. We can jump into
any hot zone and get the job done quickly and efficiently. If you
want proof, here is our body of work of success (the sell message).
You don't need to know what/how we do our work, and you don't want
to know, like velcro and the magic shammy. 

What we mean by this is that it feels like "design". Plain and
simple and noted above, but it is framed and practiced in such a way
that makes it practical and focused on such niche problem areas.

Jim, is our reflection of our understanding improving? (more
positive?)

-- 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jonas Löwgren]

When I read and think about this thread, I see two somewhat related  
aspects being addressed.




One is about the significance of _methodology_.

Can RED be specified, broken down into steps, compared with other  
methods, etc.? I suppose it can, and Jim has offered a three-phase  
structure, but the attempt doesn't really seem to be enough for some  
of the other list members.


The heart of the matter, I believe, is whether methods carry  
knowledge or not. If RED could be "specified" extensively as a  
procedural method, would that enable other designers to perform at  
the levels Jim is suggesting -- by following the specified method?


In my personal opinion, the answer is no. Methods (and tools) are  
never better than the people using them. And the phases identified by  
Jim certainly contain no particular secrets to successful design  
outcomes. As I read Jim's discussion of RED, the key is the abilities  
that the RED designer holds.




Which leads on to the other aspect of the thread: the nature of  
_design ability_.


What is it that distinguishes a good designer in terms of skills and  
knowledge? This is a question that has been addressed extensively in  
the academic field of design studies, and typical answers include  
things like
- a repertoire of genre-relevant design ideas that can be matched  
rapidly against new design situations;
- craft skills to bring the outcomes of such matching processes into  
concrete existence ("sketching");
- the ability to judge possible design ideas by predicting how they  
are likely to work, based on internalized and operationalized  
elements from research, observation, previous work in similar use  
situations, etc.


A natural follow-up question is then how design ability can be  
developed. Referring to design studies again, a typical answer is by  
reflective practice (roughly: apprentice/master learning augmented  
with meta-levels of reflection on learning processes). Methods (and  
tools) play important roles in learning, but do not substitute it:  
they do not carry knowledge in themselves.


As might be inferred, this way of thinking entails that design  
examples are key resources in building design ability. The strong  
emphasis on inspirational collections, canons, portfolios and crits  
that you will find in design schools is no coincidence -- the work  
taking place in such settings is always primarily about concrete  
examples, and the underlying agenda is to provide the raw materials  
for students to build their own repertoires and judgment skills.


The work of Donald Schön was already mentioned, and I second it as a  
very useful introduction to this kind of thinking about design  
ability. I could add Nigel Cross ("Designerly ways of knowing") as  
another useful introductory resource.




I know that these observations do not contribute to a "definition" of  
RED, and perhaps they don't help the discussion forward. But the  
bottom line for me is the role of methodology vs. the role of ability  
in our field. My reading is that Jim is talking mainly about ability  
(which makes perfect sense to me from a design-theoretical point of  
view), whereas much of the discussion in the thread seems to be based  
in a different mindset, where methods are seen as carriers of  
(practical) knowledge.


Jonas Löwgren

PS. I would happily add my 21 years to Jared's accumulated-design- 
experience tally, although I have done most of it in academic  
settings. Don't know if that counts.




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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Angel Marquez]

This is the RED  you should be talking about!

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Jim Leftwich  wrote:

> I don't think how I and my partners design is anything at all like
> whatever the design that's been done (as you characterize broadly)
> "in technology design for the past 30  years."
>
> I doubt that all of those teams, including the unsuccessful ones you
> mentioned, approached things from very diverse and experienced
> backgrounds, with expertise in designing a wide range of development
> factors successfully.  I also doubt that those efforts have involved
> teams producing pixel-perfect and behavioral-rule-perfect
> specification blueprints, as we've done.
>
>  I don't think the approach and level of design and interactional
> architecture I'm describing is found in the typical way technology
> design has been practiced across all products, software, and systems.
>  I believe that the RED I'm describing is most often practiced by
> consultants, and as you'd stated earlier, small teams.
>
> I believe what you're alluding to is actually a lack of adequate
> architectural design.  The typical effort has been a cobbled-together
> mash of engineering with a big of marketing icing smeared over the
> top.  Almost nothing could be further from the RED practice I'm
> describing.
>
> RED is much closer to how building architecture has been
> traditionally approached.  We design it, produce the blueprints, and
> the engineers build it.  Often it is very collaborative with
> engineers.
>
> And it's not as though there's no research.  It's just that the
> research is conducted very quickly, and also involves extensively
> pulling from any already-known body of knowledge at the client or in
> the organization.
>
> Your claim of it will work well when... and it will fail when... can
> just as easily be applied to any type of methodology and any
> generic/symbolic designer.
>
> What I believe, from what I've experienced first hand and what I've
> observed, is that experienced and broad-based RED practitioners and
> small teams are capable, designer-for-designer/team-for-tem, of
> producing more and superior products, in more conditions, in tighter
> timeframes, for less cost, than any other method.  But that assumes
> that the designers are both broadly talented and extensively
> experienced.
>
> The only way to determine whether or not this is true is to examine
> the outcomes and the associated efforts that went into them.  That's
> why I contend that when all is said and done, it comes down to
> examples of actual work, as in the design, implementation, and
> results.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

I don't think how I and my partners design is anything at all like
whatever the design that's been done (as you characterize broadly)
"in technology design for the past 30  years."

I doubt that all of those teams, including the unsuccessful ones you
mentioned, approached things from very diverse and experienced
backgrounds, with expertise in designing a wide range of development
factors successfully.  I also doubt that those efforts have involved
teams producing pixel-perfect and behavioral-rule-perfect
specification blueprints, as we've done.

 I don't think the approach and level of design and interactional
architecture I'm describing is found in the typical way technology
design has been practiced across all products, software, and systems.
 I believe that the RED I'm describing is most often practiced by
consultants, and as you'd stated earlier, small teams.

I believe what you're alluding to is actually a lack of adequate
architectural design.  The typical effort has been a cobbled-together
mash of engineering with a big of marketing icing smeared over the
top.  Almost nothing could be further from the RED practice I'm
describing.

RED is much closer to how building architecture has been
traditionally approached.  We design it, produce the blueprints, and
the engineers build it.  Often it is very collaborative with
engineers.

And it's not as though there's no research.  It's just that the
research is conducted very quickly, and also involves extensively
pulling from any already-known body of knowledge at the client or in
the organization.

Your claim of it will work well when... and it will fail when... can
just as easily be applied to any type of methodology and any
generic/symbolic designer.

What I believe, from what I've experienced first hand and what I've
observed, is that experienced and broad-based RED practitioners and
small teams are capable, designer-for-designer/team-for-tem, of
producing more and superior products, in more conditions, in tighter
timeframes, for less cost, than any other method.  But that assumes
that the designers are both broadly talented and extensively
experienced.

The only way to determine whether or not this is true is to examine
the outcomes and the associated efforts that went into them.  That's
why I contend that when all is said and done, it comes down to
examples of actual work, as in the design, implementation, and
results.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 28, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:


1) Initial information gathering, stakeholder interviews and
discussions, and review and analysis of existing bodies of
information and solutions/products/systems/services. In RED, however,
this is done very rapidly, and filtered through what's already known,
or been done previously, by the RED designer/team.

2) Rapid prototyping (this will vary among RED practitioners). My
team uses extensive paper prototyping, flows, layouts, and pattern
diagrams, iterating these to quickly explore interrelationships and
refine effective solutions.

3) Produce implementable specifications that engineers can implement
in a high-fidelity manner (blueprints), rather than spend too much of
the limited time producing interactive prototypes and limited
documentation (that engineers must analyze and try to
reduce/reproduce as an implementation.


Jim,

I'm really trying. But I'm not getting it.

This, to me, just seems like standard operating procedure for design  
done without outside research. It'll work well when the experience of  
the design team is such that the decisions they make are smart  
decisions. It'll fail when the team makes decisions that they don't  
realize cause problems down the road.


This is not unlike processes used by teams all over the world, many of  
whom end up producing designs the users love. And many of whom end up  
producing designs the users despise. (Think of almost any design from  
a major company that frustrates the hell out of you and I'll bet you  
their team used this approach.)


So, please help me understand how this is any different than what's  
been done in technology design for the past 30+ years.


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks  Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

I think my most recent post is about as detailed as I can get to a
description of the components of the RED approach to design and
development.

It's not a reductionist set of processes, such as those promoted by
others, so those looking for something akin to how other
methodologies are described, but different, will not find it here.

The three activities described above, iteratively pursued within the
context of a design problem, yield the results. This is our
successful, and repeated process, even if it falls short of a formal
(or simple enough?) description/definition for some requests.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Robert Hoekman Jr]

>
> Rather than spending so much time dissecting the "nature" of discussions on
> this list, your efforts would be
> better served by putting on the old marketing hat and crafting a
> definition of RED that might be used as a doorway into what you consider a
> more productive conversation.
>

Cheers to that.

-r-

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Cindy Chastain]

Jim,

In all due respect, I think people on this list are trying very hard to
elicit a definition of RED that can be considered within a thoughtful
discussion.  As Dave Malouf said, you can't expect to put an idea out there
without taking a swipe or two, but that doesn't mean that this community has
a propensity for slamming anything that seems unorthdox.  Quiet the
contrary.  You clearly feel very passionate about your ideas, but, again, I
fail to see the tangible description of RED that can not only be judged
along side other established methodologies, but can be used as a starting
point for discussion. In fact, I went back and re-read Dan Saffer's
description of "Genius Design" and, whether you like the label or not, the
concept is clearly explained in about a page and a half of text.  No
problem. I totally get what he means, regardless of the so-called label.
For an idea to take hold, we must have some overarching concept as a
starting point.   Detailed discussions of past work should function as
"evidence in support of a concept" rather than prerequisite for discerning a
concept.  In short, if we don't get it at "hello", it's not going evolve as
a productive conversation.  To your point, it ends up being and endless Q&A
rather than a thoughtful debate.  Rather than spending so much time
dissecting the "nature" of discussions on this list, your efforts would be
better served by putting on the old marketing hat and crafting a definition
of RED that might be used as a doorway into what you consider a more
productive conversation.

Cheers,
Cindy

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jeremy Yuille]

oh - and I'll dig out the WIL etc refs and post too. it'll take me a
few days though :
43C/110F here all week and there's s much to get through before
flying to YVR in .. 5 days.. omg!


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jeremy Yuille]

@Dave and others asking for deeper analysis etc, a lot of this is
reminding me of some things I read for my PhD last year, particularly
around work integrated learning (WIL) particularly in the health
(nursing for example) and education sectors

...and Donald Schön's stuff around how reflective practitioners
learn through practice (the reflective practitioner, educating the
reflective practitioner) - what Jim and others are (i think)
describing as experience.

Late last year I started doing some interviews with IxD's around
(amongst other things) 'what goes on in the studio' and how they
communicate their knowledge and insight to one another while they
work. I'd love to say that I have some answers, but the work so far
is just beginning (it has to fit in with a full time academic job and
other life). I hope to have some more cogent thoughts on this at the
end of this year if anyone's interested.

I'd also be interested to follow up with people who have strong
thoughts on this while in Vancouver next week.., so feel free to drop
me a line if yr interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Schon is a good starting point re
Schön and other related work...


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

To address Gabby's question, a very small web-sized selection of bits
of my own projects can be found at my site:

http://www.orbitnet.com/

And though it's from 2005, a slideshow and accompanying set of
slides giving very high-level overviews of a selection of projects
can be found at:

Text:
http://orbitnet.com/iasummit2005/

Slides:
http://www.orbitnet.com/iasummit2005/iasummit2005.html

...though these examples were not aimed at laying out a reductionist
process, but rather distilling some lessons learned along the way
from each of these projects.

For some of the documentation samples included in those slides, it's
important to note that there are often hundreds of similar pages that
would've gone into the development, and many more that serve as part
of the implemenation documentation.

As for how clients are approached, many project begin by actually
doing a short but intense project to give an overview of the phases
that will comprise the project.  The teams I've worked with (in
consulting roles) always create very detailed, often design-filled
proposals.  We've even done first draft style guides to show the
approach we will take more fully in a project.  I've seen a lot of
text-based design proposals, and I've also had a number of clients
from large consumer electronic corporations comment that they were
really convinced by both the past work we've shown and, in cases
where we did it, our proposal's quick overview designs.

Nobody I'm familiar with has ever simply asked a client to trust
them, without given them a great deal of confidence of what they've
done, and what they will do and deliver.

Ironically, I can hardly count the times I've been involved in
design projects that followed some former design consultancy that the
client was unhappy with, and I know that some of these involved large
teams and quite a bit of research and process.  Apparently some of
these have difficulty in translating all of that research and process
into an actual implementable design.  At least that's what I hear
from some clients.

And I actually did lay out the three primary activities that make up
the RED projects I and others have worked on:

I'll repeat them here again, as some evidently missed them:

1) Initial information gathering, stakeholder interviews and
discussions, and review and analysis of existing bodies of
information and solutions/products/systems/services. In RED, however,
this is done very rapidly, and filtered through what's already known,
or been done previously, by the RED designer/team.

2) Rapid prototyping (this will vary among RED practitioners). My
team uses extensive paper prototyping, flows, layouts, and pattern
diagrams, iterating these to quickly explore interrelationships and
refine effective solutions.

3) Produce implementable specifications that engineers can implement
in a high-fidelity manner (blueprints), rather than spend too much of
the limited time producing interactive prototypes and limited
documentation (that engineers must analyze and try to
reduce/reproduce as an implementation.

These phases and their embodiments and examples are *best and most
easily* discussed within the context of a review of real
documentation, rather than through a run down of a reductionist list.


In proposals we describe in detail how these three activities will be
conducted (iteratively) and what the specific deliverables will be and
at what times.

We use past project documentation to give new clients a sense for the
form and depth of this work.  It's not magic, nor mythical, nor
anything other than simply real work.

It's very much enough structure and process to give a client a sense
of how the development will proceed.  And this design work is almost
always very closely coordinated with the client and in some cases
carried on collaboratively (we've experienced many variations on
both).


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Gabby]

Despite repeated mention of examples and/or documentation about this
magical unicorn of a. . . thing/process/ideology/methodoolgy, Mr.
Leftwich has yet to provide a link to any of it. My kingdom for
useful examples, sir!


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Todd Zaki Warfel]

On Jan 28, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Yury Frolov|Studio Asterisk* wrote:

... But is there anything wrong with RED being 'just' an "approach"  
or "mode of operation"? Like Special Ops tactics and tools (i am not  
crazy about this analogy - but for the lack of a better one..) i  
suspect certain RED practices can be codified and successfully  
"scaled" into various project strategies ...


Nothing wrong with that, if anyone understood what kind of tactics  
were used and how they can actually implement them themselves. Problem  
is, Jim hasn't, nor has anyone else, actually defined what RED is.


We haven't bought in, because we don't see the value, because we don't  
understand, because it hasn't be defined.



Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
--
Contact Info
Voice:  (215) 825-7423
Email:  t...@messagefirst.com
AIM:twar...@mac.com
Blog:   http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter:zakiwarfel
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.




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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Todd Zaki Warfel]

On Jan 28, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Jared Spool wrote:

I've read through your comments multiple times and others have said  
they've done the same. Yet, there's still confusion over how this is  
more than just really-smart-and-experience-people-doing-good-work.  
You, yourself, said it isn't as much a method as it is a  
"philosophy" or "approach". Other than a label you've put on your  
own working style, what is really the repeatable, scalable element  
here?


This reminds me of that article Lou commented on from that Branding  
guy who was clueless a few months back. Shows you how memorable his  
branded version of whatever design process he had was, I can't even  
remember the name or company or anything.



Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
--
Contact Info
Voice:  (215) 825-7423
Email:  t...@messagefirst.com
AIM:twar...@mac.com
Blog:   http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter:zakiwarfel
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.




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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Yury Frolov|Studio Asterisk*]

On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Jared Spool wrote:

Yet, there's still confusion over how this is more than just really- 
smart-and-experience-people-doing-good-work. You, yourself, said it  
isn't as much a method as it is a "philosophy" or "approach". Other  
than a label you've put on your own working style, what is really the  
repeatable, scalable element here?

 In other words, is there a 'there' there?

-

... But is there anything wrong with RED being 'just' an "approach"  
or "mode of operation"? Like Special Ops tactics and tools (i am not  
crazy about this analogy - but for the lack of a better one..) i  
suspect certain RED practices can be codified and successfully  
"scaled" into various project strategies ...


...What I am reading in Jim's comments is that he frames an  
interesting design phenomenon (which spreads beyond narrow design  
methodologies) that many people practice but that has not been  
recognized or sufficiently discussed


I think there is something 'there' since I believe most of us are  
familiar with numerous cases when a work of "really-smart-and- 
experience-people-doing-good-work" went nowhere - i.e. has not  
resulted in great, good or even acceptable designs to be tested and  
released ...


RED may not be always adequately implemented (by the engineering team  
- see other threads on this list :) - or may be not even the most  
ideal design solution possible- but at least there is always a  
tangible result - a designed product or service ... not just a bunch  
of UI consultants' reports that engineers do not know what to do with  
-- no offense meant to people whose work is to produce those reports



Yury Frolov
Design Director, Studio Asterisk*

GUI Strategy | User Experience | Brand

415 374 7478 voice
702 446 7840 fax

www.studioasterisk.com



On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Jared Spool wrote:



On Jan 28, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:


Peter Boersma puts forward another caricatured oversimplification of
what actually occurs.  It's difficult to respond to it without being
drawn into unproductive and uninteresting argumentation, so I'll just
let his comment stand for what it is.


In my opinion, Jim, the reason why you're seeing these "caricatured  
oversimplifications" is that we're all struggling here trying to  
understand the essence of what you're talking about.


The people involved in this conversation: Peter, Robert, Marc, Todd,  
Christian, David, and myself represent a substantial amount of  
experience doing design with 100+ years between us. (Others involved  
in the discussion, such as Yury and Jonas, probably also have a lot  
of experience. I just don't know them as well.)


If we're not *getting* how this method is different from your  
explanations, it might be because there's still some important,  
critical piece that's missing from the discussion.


I've read through your comments multiple times and others have said  
they've done the same. Yet, there's still confusion over how this is  
more than just really-smart-and-experience-people-doing-good-work.  
You, yourself, said it isn't as much a method as it is a "philosophy"  
or "approach". Other than a label you've put on your own working  
style, what is really the repeatable, scalable element here?


I'm just not getting how this is different than what we've already  
got, just with the addition that you've thought about it a lot (which  
is clear) and seem to have a way of transferring it to other designers.


In other words, is there a 'there' there?

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks  Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Robert Hoekman states:  "Boy, are you in the wrong place. On this
list, one cannot have a dialog without the inclusion of naysayers and
skeptics. : ) "

I think this dynamic is familiar to anyone that's participated in
online forums over the past two decades.  My approach is not to
engage with baiting, but to dialog with those that pick up on at
least some aspect and engage in honest dialog (as opposed to simply
repeating demands for this or that - an old and tiresome debate
gambit).

I think it's only problematic with some of the respondents here,
perhaps yourself included.  Others, including some that have emailed
me directly, do indeed connect with the subject, and that was
expected.

Perhaps if you're attending Interaction09 next week, you can join us
in a higher bandwidth discussion, perhaps with some examples.  I'd
enjoy that opportunity in a more accomodating environment.

Until then however, I'm still happy to hear other anecdotes and
observations from practitioners working in situations similar to
what's been adequately described here.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Robert Hoekman Jr]

You've still done pretty much everything but actually define R.E.D. If you
can't explain what it is (instead of what it is not) in a clear manner, it's
going to be very difficult to get anyone else to understand it, hence all
the confusion in this thread.

My goal, which I stated earlier, is not to be drawn into a
> frustrating and ineffective debate with naysayers, skeptics, or those
> who strongly advocate other approaches to design.


Boy, are you in the wrong place. On this list, one cannot have a dialog
without the inclusion of naysayers and skeptics. :)

For what it's worth, this debate might only be ineffective and frustrating
because few people here seem to understand what you're talking about despite
that we're all trying to.

Define R.E.D. and let's go from there.

-r-

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Janna Hicks DeVylder]

I feel an opportunity for a 'lunch and discuss' in Vancouver, don't you?


>
> It's unrealistic to expect that all of that vast set of issues be
> laid out here for easy digestion in just a few days.  In a text forum
> no less!
>
>

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Jared Spool states:  "In my opinion, Jim, the reason why you're
seeing these "caricatured oversimplifications" is that we're all
struggling here trying to understand the essence of what you're
talking about."

Well, I would say that any understanding and desire for dialog must
start first with some respect and restraint towards rhetorically
mischaracterizing what one may be struggling to understand.  Peter
went so far as to actually label his caricatures as "Jim says..." 
This doesn't strike me as a very productive way to proceed with an
effective discussion, and I'm sure our readers would rather not be
forced to wade through a lot of signal-free noise and thrash.

I've also stated that its in reviewing the documentation of RED
projects that the patterns and processes become apparent.  RED is not
a "reduced practice."  RED involves a process that's embodied in
the repeated activities and approaches taken by its practitioners,
which can be captured to varying degrees in documentation of those
projects' records.  In the case of many of my own projects I began
documented them fairly well early on, in order to serve as the means
to better communicate to prospective clients exactly all that was
involved in a wide range of projects.

And this has worked.  It was methodical, and it accrued over time.  I
take great exception with the oversimplification, "just
really-smart-and-experience-people-doing-good-work" as within that
is a great deal of the complexity.  I've flatly stated that this
complexity can only really be studied (after the fact) in
documentation of the development and outcomes.

It's unrealistic to expect that all of that vast set of issues be
laid out here for easy digestion in just a few days.  In a text forum
no less!

My goal, which I stated earlier, is not to be drawn into a
frustrating and ineffective debate with naysayers, skeptics, or those
who strongly advocate other approaches to design.  My goal, which has
already produced some significant results in the posts of others
here, is to begin a dialog about this general approach to design
primarily with others practicing in similar manners (of which
variation is expected).


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

I think Robert Hoekman's observation is generally correct.  Many
situations where RED is useful, if not necessary in order to produce
the most thorough, integrated, and successful solution in the
shortest period of time or also possibly under additional
constraints, result in clients who are receptive to documented
successful RED pracitioners/teams.  Not in every single case, but
often enough that it is not at all rare.

To some of these clients, it may indeed be a desire for, or look to
be "a waving of a magic wand."

To a RED designer or team, this is sadly never the case.  RED, if
successful, is often hard and intense work.  It should not be
confused for an easy shortcut to proper design.

In fact, many RED projects fill nearly all the hours with attention
to detailing and interrelational patterning, rather than an extended
period of gathering data and producing research reports.  There are
many projects of the last decade where the implementable spec was due
within just one to two months, and the actual design work filled
nearly every hour of every teammember's time and attention.

But it's in this crucible that some extraordinary experiences are
gained.  That's the payoff to the RED practitioners and teams.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 28, 2009, at 2:55 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:


Peter Boersma puts forward another caricatured oversimplification of
what actually occurs.  It's difficult to respond to it without being
drawn into unproductive and uninteresting argumentation, so I'll just
let his comment stand for what it is.


In my opinion, Jim, the reason why you're seeing these "caricatured  
oversimplifications" is that we're all struggling here trying to  
understand the essence of what you're talking about.


The people involved in this conversation: Peter, Robert, Marc, Todd,  
Christian, David, and myself represent a substantial amount of  
experience doing design with 100+ years between us. (Others involved  
in the discussion, such as Yury and Jonas, probably also have a lot of  
experience. I just don't know them as well.)


If we're not *getting* how this method is different from your  
explanations, it might be because there's still some important,  
critical piece that's missing from the discussion.


I've read through your comments multiple times and others have said  
they've done the same. Yet, there's still confusion over how this is  
more than just really-smart-and-experience-people-doing-good-work.  
You, yourself, said it isn't as much a method as it is a "philosophy"  
or "approach". Other than a label you've put on your own working  
style, what is really the repeatable, scalable element here?


I'm just not getting how this is different than what we've already  
got, just with the addition that you've thought about it a lot (which  
is clear) and seem to have a way of transferring it to other designers.


In other words, is there a 'there' there?

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks  Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Andrei Herasimchuk]

On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Jared Spool wrote:

Once the team starts to get multiple experts, they naturally will  
not agree on important decisions. At that point, they'll require new  
research to resolve conflicts and further inform the design  
decisions. This moves them into a different classification of  
decision style.


Sounds like the Dallas Cowboys.

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. and...@involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Peter Boersma puts forward another caricatured oversimplification of
what actually occurs.  It's difficult to respond to it without being
drawn into unproductive and uninteresting argumentation, so I'll just
let his comment stand for what it is.

None of the projects of which I'm familiar with would've gotten
underway if what Peter claims was true.  Clients really are
interested in seeing past experience and documentation of process and
outcomes.

And to respond to Jared's comment, no RED is not simply an attempt
to add complexity to an inherently simple approach to design.  RED is
inherently complex when practiced sucessfully.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Robert Hoekman Jr]

>
> Jim's medium-length answer: "My team and I will listen, leaf through
> existing documentation, do some minimal research, (paper)prototype, discuss
> documents, and document for implementation. We've done that before, and it
> worked then so it will work for you too."
>
> My guess is that most clients won't take that for an answer and want to
> know more about how and when they can contribute, what they can expect in
> between project start and final delivery, and approximately when they can
> start buying advertising space for their new product.


Clients accept this answer all the time, usually without even asking for it.
They come to consultants with no budget, no time, and no resources, and
expect designers to wave their magic wands and come up with the right
solutions. The designers who can do that successfully also typically know
how to collaborate with the client, set expectations, and appropriately
schedule the project despite all the limitations.

There are also loads of successful products/apps/sites/etc out there that
were designed without an ounce of project-specific research or a
documentable process.

-r-

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 28, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:

The term "genius" is [...] a sort of "throw up one's hands" effort  
at slapping

a label on a complex reality.


Or maybe, just maybe, the term "R.E.D." is an attempt to add  
complexity to something that is inherently simple.


Just sayin'.

Jared


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Peter Boersma]

My summary of this thread, so far:

JarEd wants to know Jim's answer to the client's question:
"what are you going to do for me, and how?"

Jim's short answer: "Trust me, I'm experienced!"

Jim's medium-length answer: "My team and I will listen, leaf through existing 
documentation, do some minimal research, (paper)prototype, discuss documents, 
and document for implementation. We've done that before, and it worked then so 
it will work for you too."

My guess is that most clients won't take that for an answer and want to know 
more about how and when they can contribute, what they can expect in between 
project start and final delivery, and approximately when they can start buying 
advertising space for their new product.

If Jim maintains that the long answer is that he will show the client more case 
studies of successful past projects, I am afraid he is going to sound like a 
broken record, not a broken comb... ;-)

An finally, if RED = talent + skills + experience + knowledge + client trust 
but no fixed process, then I'm done listening.

PetEr
-- 
Peter Boersma | Senior Interaction Designer | Info.nl
http://www.peterboersma.com/blog | http://www.info.nl

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

The term "genius" is so problematically loaded, that it will never
function to effectively describe what is occurring in the situations
it purports to label.

It is, rather, a sort of "throw up one's hands" effort at slapping
a label on a complex reality.  It also carries a high propensity to be
perceived pejoratively, and thus the underlying reality being
completely misunderstood.

It is, in this way, a term that invites more argumentation over the
term itself, than a proper focus on the complex dynamics it purports
to label.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Yury Frolov|Studio Asterisk*]

On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Jared Spool wrote:
I'm not sure that's true. In the studies we've done of folks  
employing Genius Design (still stickin' with the label!), it's almost  
always been solo designers.


-
Jared, I don't think we disagree. Many cooks in one kitchen -  not  
good. I emphasized on "small TEAM" - i should have emphasized on  
"SMALL" as well. Lead designer is the one who eventually makes design  
decisions - he/she takes all expert inputs and synthesizes it all in  
a final design (or series of design prototypes). Some SW products  
domains are so complex that working solo is practically impossible...  
unless one specializes in some narrow domain (like enterprise network  
management, etc.) for a long time. Plus - building prototypes,  
creating visual designs typically involve other experts as well - so  
it ends up being a team anyway...


... and ...  I am not sure if one can equate R.E.D and Genius design...
IMHO  - R.E.D is more about the mode of operation. RED team may apply  
a mixture of different principles be it UCD or Genius or ... BMCD (as  
in Biz-Management Centered Design - :)  ) - as project challenges  
require ... the trick is in finding workable solution and balance  
between the needs of Users, Business Management and Geniuses :)




Yury Frolov
Design Director, Studio Asterisk*

GUI Strategy | User Experience | Brand

415 374 7478 voice
702 446 7840 fax

www.studioasterisk.com



On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Jared Spool wrote:



On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Yury Frolov|Studio Asterisk* wrote:

It seems like one aspect is missing in this discussion. I'd argue  
that typical RED project involves a small TEAM of experts who  
address various aspects of design challenge and may include a lead  
designer, researcher, usability specialist, technologist, visual  
designer etc. etc.


I'm not sure that's true. In the studies we've done of folks  
employing Genius Design (still stickin' with the label!), it's almost  
always been solo designers. If you rank them in terms of success  
criteria (we have dozens -- too much to go into here), the solo  
designers come out at the top. When we've looked at the Genius Design  
folks working in teams, we found the teams were small (2-3 people)  
and there almost always was a strong leader with a dominant personality.


From this very early data (we're still collecting and refining our  
results), this tells us that Genius Design succeeds best in instances  
where you have a very experienced, skilled individual making the  
design decisions.


Once the team starts to get multiple experts, they naturally will not  
agree on important decisions. At that point, they'll require new  
research to resolve conflicts and further inform the design  
decisions. This moves them into a different classification of  
decision style.


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks  Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Jared Spool states:  "Once the team starts to get multiple experts,
they naturally will not agree on important decisions."

That certainly doesn't match the experiences I've observed, in both
cases of multiple interaction experts or in cases where there was one
or more interaction design experts and an engineering expert.

Collaboration and working through the possible solutions (either at
the macro or micro scale of the project), generally always allows
these to be worked out effectively and successfully.

I consider this all to be part of the overall RED practice.

And again, nobody I've ever worked with has referred to themselves
as an inherent "genius," but has simply visualized and iteratively
developed their solution or proposal that became part of or altered
the larger solution.

Any team will naturally have more experienced and less experienced
members.  Personalities and styles, however, can vary a great deal. 
I've seen many younger designers coneive brilliant and insightful
solutions, and a good and effective RED team will always immediately
recognize and incorporate this.

None of the RED efforts I've been part of have been dictatorships
(among the RED team).  There are, at times, issues that can be in
contention, but with communication and effort at working through
options, these are resolvable in successful ways that add value to
the effort.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 28, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Yury Frolov|Studio Asterisk* wrote:

It seems like one aspect is missing in this discussion. I'd argue  
that typical RED project involves a small TEAM of experts who  
address various aspects of design challenge and may include a lead  
designer, researcher, usability specialist, technologist, visual  
designer etc. etc.


I'm not sure that's true. In the studies we've done of folks employing  
Genius Design (still stickin' with the label!), it's almost always  
been solo designers. If you rank them in terms of success criteria (we  
have dozens -- too much to go into here), the solo designers come out  
at the top. When we've looked at the Genius Design folks working in  
teams, we found the teams were small (2-3 people) and there almost  
always was a strong leader with a dominant personality.


From this very early data (we're still collecting and refining our  
results), this tells us that Genius Design succeeds best in instances  
where you have a very experienced, skilled individual making the  
design decisions.


Once the team starts to get multiple experts, they naturally will not  
agree on important decisions. At that point, they'll require new  
research to resolve conflicts and further inform the design decisions.  
This moves them into a different classification of decision style.


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks  Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Yury Frolov|Studio Asterisk*]

Todd Zaki Warfel: So, is the emphasis here on the Rapid or on the  
Expert part? 

And frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.


Good question:) ... I think In the course of the RED project the  
emphasis changes constantly between "Rapid", "Expert" and even  
"Design" :)


As Jim mentioned it's more about the "approach" or ..  "mode of  
operation" rather than about any established design philosophy or  
methodology (UCD, genius etc). These methods may (or may not) be  
included into any particular project mix - and  - UCD and Genius  
principles may alternate during the same project. It also involves  
active work with client, understanding their biz drivers,  
capabilities, hidden desires and internal organizational politics -  
that's when those extracurricular public speaking and business/ 
financial-oriented classes start paying off ... :)


And "all the fuzz" i believe is because this approach helps produce  
relatively quickly complete and tangible product designs that can go  
to market and make a real difference for clients and users in the  
environment where budgets are limited - but not necessarily low :),  
resources are constrained and time is critical.


It seems like one aspect is missing in this discussion. I'd argue  
that typical RED project involves a small TEAM of experts who address  
various aspects of design challenge and may include a lead designer,  
researcher, usability specialist, technologist, visual designer etc.  
etc. As any experienced cook can modify a known recipe on the fly  -  
based on available ingredients - and still produce good meal,  
similarly - experienced design lead can achieve good and even great  
results in very "limited"  circumstances working with small team of  
experts applying their expertise on as needed basis...



Yury Frolov
Design Director, Studio Asterisk*

GUI Strategy | User Experience | Brand

415 374 7478 voice
702 446 7840 fax

www.studioasterisk.com



On Jan 28, 2009, at 4:10 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:


So, is the emphasis here on the Rapid or on the Expert part?

Is it a RAPID Expert Designer or a Rapid EXPERT Designer? Is it rapid  
design done by an expert, or quickly producing what could be defined  
as an amazing expert design?


I guess I'm asking if Expert is being used as noun or adjective.

And frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.



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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Gloria asks the question, "How does a person measure the depth of
their experience, and market it appropriately".

I would say that for RED practitioners this is almost always measured
in terms of past experience and outcomes.

Has the designer/team worked in this domain/specific situation
before?

Have past projects produced insights that can now inform current and
future projects? (as has been an often observed result in my own
experiences and those I'm familiar with)

And the way confidence is most effectively transmitted to new
clients, teammembers, colleagues, and management is through
documentation of those past projects.  This is documentation of both
the development and implementation process as well as the various
aspects of the project's outcome (user/customer satisfaction,
business success, etc.).


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Gloria Petron]

In *Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions*, Gary Klein offers a case
study about a baby who almost died in a neonatal intensive care unit. There
were two nurses on duty: a shift leader with years of experience (I'll call
her Mary), and a trainee (Jill). One night while they were both on duty,
Jill noticed a subtle drop in a baby's temperature. She attributed the
change to coldness in the room, so she corrected the temperature in the
bassinet and forgot about it. A few minutes later, Mary looked at the same
baby, noted the temp change, but also noticed the baby's subtle color change
and reduced fussiness, which Jill had missed. From experience, Mary
recognized the signs of onset sepsis and started the emergency protocol that
would save the baby's life.

In the post review, Mary was angry at the Jill for missing the "obvious"
signs of trouble. Later, however, Mary realized her own mistake: the
underestimation of her own experience, leading to her over-expectation that
someone else could "get it" in a few weeks.

Was Mary not good at her job? Should Jill handle the NICU by herself? After
all, it costs less to staff 2 people, and Jill seems reasonably smart and
eager to learn.

Maybe the question isn't so much "who's a better risk, an experienced person
or an inexperienced person." Maybe the question is, "How does a person
measure the depth of their experience, and market it appropriately".

-Gloria


Time magazine did a cover story once about the importance of the
> "experience" argument in the presidential campaign. They cited studies
> where
> very experienced nurses fared no better than less experienced nurses in
> making life or death decisions, and often fared worse. They found that
> experienced practitioners relied more on habit while less experienced
> practitioners were more prone to examine all the information available
> (albeit quickly).
>
> As a result, either group was just as likely to kill a patient.
>
> -r-
> 
> 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

Thanks Jared (and yes I got the spelling wrong in my post).

I understand and concur with the matrix you've presented, and where
the greatest risk lies.

That's essentially why I point out the importance of gaining RED
experience (when a designer is inexperienced) by working closely with
more experienced designers.  I believe I even pre-emptively pointed
out the likelihood of failure if a designer bites off more than their
experience, judgement, and capabilities can chew.

And yet I'll point out again that it's important to reach at least
some point beyond ones' knowledge and experience in order to grow as
a designer.  The key is dependent upon another form of judgement, and
that's how much of a risk of the unknown to take.

To elaborate just a bit on how a RED practitioner knows what the
outcome will be, I think it clearly lies in having an understanding
of how wireframes and flows will come to life dynamically.  I and my
teammembers can visualize fairly complex interactions in our heads as
we pore over complex wireframes and flows.  A lot of this comes from
experience and familiarity, part of it comes from innate capabilities
of being able to do so.

There was also an earlier mention of talent (I assume this means
innate) and its role in being a successful RED practitioner.

It's been my observation working with many designers and
collaborators over the years that there are definitely some that have
the innate abilities to grasp and successfully wrangle the types of
complex, dynamic, and interrelated architectures that comprise
interaction design.  And some most definitely do not.  This is
separate from the equally important *temperment* quality, which I
also think is necessary.  RED can be intense, and that's one reason
it's not the type of work that every designer would care to pursue.

RED is often a lot like a high stakes game of chess, played on a
dynamic board and with and against multiple players/stakeholders.  It
definitely helps to have a head and stomach for that sort of thing. 
And yet there are many who relish these challenges and successfully
pursue them.

To clarify Todd's question, the "Expert" applies first to
expertise as a RED practitioner and secondly to expertise in
particular application domains.  The ratio between the two will
likely vary between RED practitioners.  Some may stay primarily
within a particular domain and have great domain expertise, while
others' expertise may be in generalist practice of RED across many
domains.  And there are RED practitioners that fall in between.

Many are familiar with the term, "T-shaped" used to describe
practitioners who have broad generalist knowledge and experience
across a number of interdependent fields and roles and deeper
specialization in one area.

I've described a related type of designer - the "Broken
Comb-shaped" designer.  Picture a comb with its teeth broken
partially out in some areas, completely out in other areas, and fully
intact in others.  And then think about how all broken combs look a
little bit different from one another.

Experienced RED practitioners and generalist designers are often
broken combs-shaped.

They differ from actual broken combs however, in that rather than
pieces being broken off, they're actually growing them bit by bit
over their careers.  ;^)



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

To those, including Dave, clamoring for an in-depth presentation of
the structured approach (or as I'd put it, patterned approach) used
by designers doing work in this manner, I would first respond that
these do exist.  Over many projects, and particularly documented
projects, there are a number of repeated steps and phases utilized.

RED projects share many aspects of the phases found in other more
formalized approaches to design, such as:

1)  Initial information gathering, stakeholder interviews and
discussions, and review and analysis of existing bodies of
information and solutions/products/systems/services.  In RED,
however, this is done very rapidly, and filtered through what's
already known, or been done previously, by the RED designer/team.

2)  Rapid prototyping (this will vary among RED practitioners).  My
team uses extensive paper prototyping, flows, layouts, and pattern
diagrams, iterating these to quickly explore interrelationships and
refine effective solutions.

3)  Produce implementable specifications that engineers can implement
in a high-fidelity manner (blueprints), rather than spend too much of
the limited time producing interactive prototypes and limited
documentation (that engineers must analyze and try to
reduce/reproduce as an implementation.

These phases and their embodiments and examples are *best and most
easily* discussed within the context of a review of real
documentation, rather than through a run down of a reductionist list.

My initial goal in this thread is not to attempt to do that here in a
stilted text-based forum.  I don't believe that's feasible.  My
primary goal has been to signal others in the community who
immediately and already resonate with the points I've made.  These
are others who are already practicing working in similar fashions
that have already responded, and that's the best place to start what
must be a long-term dialog and exchange of observations and
experiences.

Seeing resonating responses such as Yury Frolov's indicates that
there are others whose experiences and approaches are similar.  I'm
most interested, personally, in beginning a dialog along those lines,
than in getting bogged down in tedious Q/A with those not familiar
with this type of design work or those wishing to get wrapped around
the axle of semantics and abstract and problematic concepts as
"likely success ratios."

It's much more informative to discuss (over time) actual cases and
experiences with (relative) sucesses and failures.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 27, 2009, at 11:22 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:


I'm in extremely strong disagreement with Jarod in a number of things
he states.


I'm assuming you're talking about me (JarEd). There's another JarOd on  
this list, who often has interesting things to say, but he hasn't  
participated in this thread. I apologize if my assumption is incorrect.



 I disagree with his statement that one does not know where
a RED design will end until after it's finished.

This is flatly untrue.  It's a matter of experience.  One has to
have confidence of where a design (which can indeed be both grasped
in the mind and in extensive blueprints) will be when implemented and
realized.  This is simply a fact that's been borne out in many
designs by many designers.


You can think of this as a two-by-two matrix. On the horizontal, you  
have "Is not experienced" and "Is experienced". On there vertical you  
have "Thinks is experienced" and "Doesn't think is experienced".


I believe you're focusing on the quadrant that is both "Is  
experienced" and "thinks is experienced." People in this quadrant will  
likely do an excellent job. Similarly, the people in "Is not  
experienced" and "Doesn't think is experienced" will likely resort to  
other means, such as activity-focused or user-focused research, to get  
the information they need to make decisions.


It's the other two quadrants that produce issues. Those that fall into  
"Is experienced" and "Doesn't think is experienced" will underperform  
and spend resources on research that don't deliver new insights. Those  
that fall into "Thinks is experienced" and "Is not experienced" will  
blindly produce designs that are unlikely to succeed.


It is this latter quadrant that I think has the most risk. In this  
case, you won't know which column you're in ("Is experienced" vs. "Is  
not experienced") until you've had a way to validate the design. You  
may "think" you know, but that's a completely different axis.


That was my original point. It is just rhetoric, but it's important  
rhetoric as we try to broaden the field to that beyond just a few  
folks who "get it" and make it into something that is scalable to the  
demands that society seems to warrant it. That's where my interest in  
this comes from.



He says he will never have to resort to RED.  I'm at a bit of a loss
to respond to Jarod, as I'm not actually familiar with his body of
work.  I would have to see Jarod's designs and understand the
outcomes, the scale and expense of effort that went into them, and
the domains that these took place in before commenting on his
approach to design and development.


What I actually said was:

I like the name Genius Design because it means I'll never resort to  
it.


As Robert pointed out, I'm not a designer (though I do dabble in it  
occasionally, often with poor results, thus increasing my respect for  
those who are). I'm a researcher focused on design management (among  
other things) and this denotation of decision styles (which is what I  
refer to Genius/RED versus other type) is important, as it helps teams  
understand when they do and don't need additional research to inform  
their design.


You can learn more about the work I've been doing from this recent  
article that describes the different design decision styles: http://is.gd/hywO


Hope that helps you understand where I was coming from.

JarEd

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks  Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com



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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

Nobody who wins the 100m at the Olympics does it on their first race.  
They've spent years practicing and preparing.


Similarly, most people who practice running every day will never  
qualify for the Olympics.


To be top of your game, you've got to have a combination of talent,  
experience, skills, and knowledge. I think that's at the crux of  
Gladwell's 10k hours concept.


Jared

On Jan 28, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Christian Crumlish wrote:

doesn't research tend to show that, regardless of inborn aptitude,  
that "talent" tends to correspond with incredible commitment to  
practice and experience? (Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours concept,  
etc.).


-xian-

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Jared Spool  wrote:

On Jan 27, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr wrote:

Are we sure that RED isn't just a fancy term for "talent"? ;)

In our work, talent is something that is naturally born. Anyone can  
learn to hit a baseball, but a real talented player can hit it in a  
way that non-talented players will never master.


--
Christian Crumlish
I'm writing a book so please forgive any lag
http://designingsocialinterfaces.com



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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Christian Crumlish]

I'm thinking about promoting a new methodology called R.A.D. (stands for
Really Awesome Design).
(i kid, , i kid!)

-x-


On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:51 AM, mark schraad  wrote:

> That is exactly how I read it. RED = RGD = really good designer

-- 
Christian Crumlish
I'm writing a book so please forgive any lag
http://designingsocialinterfaces.com

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Robert Hoekman Jr]

>
> Regardless, on any given day, or any given project, a vastly experienced
>> designer can be wrong a hundred times and an inexperienced designer can be
>> right a hundred times. Experience matters far less than judgment.
>>
>
> This comment is totally obscure to me.
>
> In my view, judgment in a design situation is strongly informed by
> experience.


Someone with lots of experience might be in a better position to have good
judgment, but that doesn't s/he will exercise it.

Time magazine did a cover story once about the importance of the
"experience" argument in the presidential campaign. They cited studies where
very experienced nurses fared no better than less experienced nurses in
making life or death decisions, and often fared worse. They found that
experienced practitioners relied more on habit while less experienced
practitioners were more prone to examine all the information available
(albeit quickly).

As a result, either group was just as likely to kill a patient.

-r-

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Robert Hoekman Jr]

>
> I'm in extremely strong disagreement with Jarod in a number of things
> he states.  I disagree with his statement that one does not know where
>  a RED design will end until after it's finished.
>
> This is flatly untrue.  It's a matter of experience.  One has to
> have confidence of where a design (which can indeed be both grasped
> in the mind and in extensive blueprints) will be when implemented and
> realized.  This is simply a fact that's been borne out in many
> designs by many designers.


Confidence or not, experience or not, you can't actually know how something
will turn out until it's done.

He says he will never have to resort to RED.  I'm at a bit of a loss
> to respond to Jarod, as I'm not actually familiar with his body of
> work.  I would have to see Jarod's designs and understand the
> outcomes, the scale and expense of effort that went into them, and
> the domains that these took place in before commenting on his
> approach to design and development.


Jared isn't a designer—he's a researcher, and a widely respected one at
that. And one of the many things he's researched is how successful design
teams work. It would be far wiser for you to read his articles than dispute
his qualifications.

-r-

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[mark schraad]

For the record, I was being serious and not flippant. I meant no  
disrespect to Jim or to his presentation of RED. I know how these  
posts can sometimes be seen as charged and misinterpreted.


When I read Jim's description (which I have done several times), I  
think of nearly every great designer that I have had the pleasure of  
working with. Nothing in that description seems unnatural or new to  
me.  Though I do not exactly understand how it fits into the  
methodology framing that preceded its explanation, Robert's (Reimann)  
comments make sense to me.


Mark




On Jan 28, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Christian Crumlish wrote:

I'm thinking about promoting a new methodology called R.A.D.  
(stands for Really Awesome Design).


(i kid, , i kid!)

-x-


On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:51 AM, mark schraad   
wrote:

That is exactly how I read it. RED = RGD = really good designer
--
Christian Crumlish
I'm writing a book so please forgive any lag
http://designingsocialinterfaces.com



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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Robert Hoekman Jr]

>
> "Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgments."
>

But some people can attain great judgment through just a little experience,
while others can have a ton of experience and never attain great judgment.

Ooh! Gotta run—someone needs my help transferring $2.5 million from a
third-world country into my bank account.

-r-

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Christian Crumlish]

doesn't research tend to show that, regardless of inborn aptitude, that
"talent" tends to correspond with incredible commitment to practice and
experience? (Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours concept, etc.).
-xian-

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Jared Spool  wrote:

>
> On Jan 27, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr wrote:
>
>  Are we sure that RED isn't just a fancy term for "talent"? ;)
>>
>
> In our work, talent is something that is naturally born. Anyone can learn
> to hit a baseball, but a real talented player can hit it in a way that
> non-talented players will never master.


-- 
Christian Crumlish
I'm writing a book so please forgive any lag
http://designingsocialinterfaces.com

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Dave Malouf]

Jim, I'm not so much dismissing as begging for more. I haven't seen
enough in your explanation or others to take RED as anything other
than hubris, so here is what I'm missing: A framework. A
deconstruction of methods and practice. a codification that can be
compared and contrasted to other methods and practices. a set of
tools, deliverables, artifacts, semantics, and syntaxes that can be
used to guide.

If you want to be so bold as to use analogies of medicine, special
forces and martial arts (ok that one is mine, but you took the bait
so to speak), you need to couch it in the same terms. Yes, only 5% of
doctors are cardio parenatal surgeons, but that is not what you are
saying. You are saying only 5% (10%, whatever) are capable of doing a
method. Further, I can read 1 book and know exactly the steps and
stages necessary for becoming such a doctor. The same is true for
special forces and martial arts masters. They have codes, tools,
methods and a language filled with semantics and syntax for anyone to
follow with proper mentorship and effort.

So I'm not dismissing. I'm begging. I'm hungry for an alternative
to UCD methods to be quite honest. I see in Industrial design around
me a host of methods and practices that are not RED and not UCD and
not genius design. They are taught, explained and codified within the
liturgy (if you will) of the portfolio and critique. It is really just
called "design". If that is what is RED is, then of course, I won't
dismiss it, but you are some how putting RED next to UCD as something
special or contrasted from standard design practice.

Sorry to keep pushing, but if you are going to put yourself out
there, ya gotta take the swipes. I know I do ALL THE TIME!

-- 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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[mark schraad]

Great quote... where/who is that from?


On Jan 28, 2009, at 1:46 AM, Jared Spool wrote:

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad  
judgments."



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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[mark schraad]

I completely agree. The conversations that spawned this were all  
about methods, perspectives, tools, and how a designer approaches a  
problem. RED does not seem to fit in any of those buckets. It is most  
certainly an admirable level to aspire to, but I am not sure it does  
much for aspiring designers or students.



On Jan 27, 2009, at 11:05 PM, Dave Malouf wrote:

hmm? I think I'm still a believer in rigorous methods for making up  
for the

unpredictability of "talent" and "judgment".



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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[mark schraad]

That is exactly how I read it. RED = RGD = really good designer


On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:57 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr wrote:


Are we sure that RED isn't just a fancy term for "talent"? ;)



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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Todd Zaki Warfel]

So, is the emphasis here on the Rapid or on the Expert part?

Is it a RAPID Expert Designer or a Rapid EXPERT Designer? Is it rapid  
design done by an expert, or quickly producing what could be defined  
as an amazing expert design?


I guess I'm asking if Expert is being used as noun or adjective.

And frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
--
Contact Info
Voice:  (215) 825-7423
Email:  t...@messagefirst.com
AIM:twar...@mac.com
Blog:   http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter:zakiwarfel
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.




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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Todd Zaki Warfel]

On Jan 27, 2009, at 11:05 PM, Dave Malouf wrote:

hmm? I think I'm still a believer in rigorous methods for making up  
for the

unpredictability of "talent" and "judgment".



Actually, Robert's point about experienced and inexperienced designers  
goes hand in hand with yours. Using great methods gives a Designer the  
capability to produce great work, regardless of the amount of past  
experience. It helps to teach the inexperienced how to do design and  
gives them a more level playing field.


I took Robert's point to mean that experience isn't the only goose  
that lays the golden egg.


Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
--
Contact Info
Voice:  (215) 825-7423
Email:  t...@messagefirst.com
AIM:twar...@mac.com
Blog:   http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter:zakiwarfel
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.




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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jonas Löwgren]

I have been following the RED thread with great interest and  
pleasure, deciding not to step in this time -- but now I have to.


Regardless, on any given day, or any given project, a vastly  
experienced
designer can be wrong a hundred times and an inexperienced designer  
can be

right a hundred times. Experience matters far less than judgment.


This comment is totally obscure to me.

In my view, judgment in a design situation is strongly informed by  
experience.
- Experience from previous design work within the genre in question,  
by the designer him/herself as well as by others.
- To some extent, experience also in adjacent genres (even though  
cross-genre transfer is not always straightforward).
- Experience from observing related use situations, with their  
particular mixes of domain expertise, stakeholder tradeoffs and  
external forces.

- Experience with tools, techniques and materials to be used.
And so on.

Of course it *can* happen that a vastly experienced designer is wrong  
a hundred times and an inexperienced designer is right a hundred  
times on any given day. But it is highly unlikely. Chances are that  
the vastly experienced designer is right far more often than the  
inexperienced designer. And this, I believe, is one of the key  
underpinnings of the whole RED notion.


Also note that the difference in judgment ability cannot be bridged  
by systematic design methods. Methods may be useful tools for  
coordination and learning, but the outcome of a method is never  
better than the person using the method.


Jonas Löwgren


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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

In response to the many great observations that Yury Frolov made, I
immediately recognize many of those same dynamics and challenges.

There are indeed circumstances and situations that are better suited
for RED approaches, and you outlined them nicely.  I and my network
and colleagues have designed some projects from scratch though, and
I'd suggest that tthose projects just represent another type of
problem or domain, complete with unique needs, constraints, and
opportunities.  It's sometimes quite nice to be able to design whole
new things from scratch in that it provides opportunities to achieve a
great deal of elegant functional and experience integration as well as
related aspects such as branding.

And I think Yury succeeded in identifying one of the most challenging
aspects, which is the longer term extension or buildout of a seed or
core design.  He identified some of the tools that are used (Style
Guides, Templates, Pattern documentation, etc.), but it's true that
often a RED team moves on to a new project, and it's left to others
to take a design forward.

I'd first say that I've seen a great variation in the detail,
utility, and ultimately effectiveness of Style Guides and
Architecture documentation.  These are not always created equal.  And
good patterns, guides, and templates both make it easier for later
designers to both extend a design with more freedom in certain
dimensions while more effectively retaining the core pattern
consistencies and relationships key to the core interaction patterns.

But I'd also point out that if a new core design moves the overall
functionality and patterns of usage to a new and improved level (in
the case of a revolution), then the subsequent evolution dynamics
aside, the product, system, or service can still be much better off. 
As with all things, we would have to speak about specific cases and
the individual issues involved in order to go deeper.

But I'd argue that even other methods, when they deal in broad
generalities, are also similarly unable to prove their effectiveness.
 It *always* comes down to the specifics of individual projects in the
end.

I do like the term "Design Cleanup Team" though.  I've had
experiences in the past where after an initial project, there would
be follow on projects one or two years later.  These were often an
opportunity to judge effectiveness of the initial work's extension
as well as an opportunity to provide further direction and guidance
of the overall design.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jim Leftwich]

I'm in extremely strong disagreement with Jarod in a number of things
he states.  I disagree with his statement that one does not know where
 a RED design will end until after it's finished.

This is flatly untrue.  It's a matter of experience.  One has to
have confidence of where a design (which can indeed be both grasped
in the mind and in extensive blueprints) will be when implemented and
realized.  This is simply a fact that's been borne out in many
designs by many designers.

He says he will never have to resort to RED.  I'm at a bit of a loss
to respond to Jarod, as I'm not actually familiar with his body of
work.  I would have to see Jarod's designs and understand the
outcomes, the scale and expense of effort that went into them, and
the domains that these took place in before commenting on his
approach to design and development.

I speak only from my own experience, and that of the many designers
I've worked with and our outcomes.

In response to Dave's comments, which seem to indicate he's decided
there's nothing here worth considering further, I believe he's
missing a great deal.

RED is very much teachable, just as martial arts are - in small
groups, and in actually doing it.  One doesn't learn martial arts
from books.  One learns by practicing dynamically with an experienced
practitioner or master.

It also likely took a long time for structured "schools" to emerge.
 Our field is young.  I would caution people like Dave to think twice
before being so outright dismissive. There is much evidence of
success to be found among the many projects out there that are
undertaken in rapid expert approaches.

I've seen young designers learn to develop these skills and broader
capabilities than they might otherwise have developed in narrower and
more structureed environments.  I'm not surprised that many with much
invested in the field's dogma to issue negative judgements here, but
what it will really come down to is results.

I had only taken a guess at what percentage of designers might adopt
these types of approaches, when I suggested 5%.  It could be more. 
The important point is that there are designers out there capable of
working at much higher levels than they might be able to do in some
of the more rigid work structures and design methodologies, and those
designers should be aware that other alternatives exist and have
produced successful outcomes.

But I will say something about anytime you see something like 5% -
and that's that it would be very unwise to assume that all
percentages are equal.  Only 5% of physicians are certain types of
specialists, but the field definitely benefits from their work and
expertise. We would never accept an attitude that discounts minority
vocations in favor of only those that somehow stretch across a much
wider (or lower common denominator) demographic in a field.

This simply doesn't make sense.

I'm willing to hold out RED, if only to provide a point around which
others that practice in this style can trade stories, experiences,
outcomes, strategies, and knowledge.  To suggest that this is not
worthwhile, is, well, not some people's cup of tea or something.

To those that would outright suggest that, in light of this topic,
state clearly that they consciously prefer the term "genius design"
precisely because of "the baggage that it comes with," and
specifically after my discussion of the troubling framing that this
term presents, I can only assume that this is a thinly-veiled gesture
of open hostility.

I'm perfectly willing to debate. However, I'd insist it be done in
context of actual design work completed and not simply rhetorical
posturing.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Steve Baty]

RED seems to be characterising what would have, in mediaeval and
pre-industrial times, been called the Master Craftsman. Someone who, through
dint of many years of learning, experience, and practical application, has
become capable of producing work that is both highly suitable to the problem
space, but also have a high standard of quality and finish.

There were many more craftsmen than there were masters. The masters were
acknowledged by their peers, through acclimation rather than certification.
Perhaps informally, or perhaps formally through the agency of a craft guild.

Am I missing some nuance of the definition of RED?

Steve
-- 
Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E:
steveb...@meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty

Blog: http://docholdsfourth.blogspot.com
Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Jared Spool]

On Jan 27, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr wrote:


Are we sure that RED isn't just a fancy term for "talent"? ;)


In our work, talent is something that is naturally born. Anyone can  
learn to hit a baseball, but a real talented player can hit it in a  
way that non-talented players will never master.


The other attributes are skills, experience, and knowledge. Skills and  
knowledge are learned. Experience is acquired.


The sum of these attributes are what make up our abilities.

I'm guessing that RED is about people at the high end of these scales,  
but talent isn't the key factor.


Regardless, on any given day, or any given project, a vastly  
experienced
designer can be wrong a hundred times and an inexperienced designer  
can be

right a hundred times. Experience matters far less than judgment.


"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad  
judgments."


Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jsp...@uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com  Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks  Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Dave Malouf]

hmm? I think I'm still a believer in rigorous methods for making up for the
unpredictability of "talent" and "judgment".

-- dave

ps. I'm not saying that you, Robert, are being anti-methods, the thought was
just merely inspired by your comment below.


On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr  wrote:

> While it is interest to know about this practice, I'm not so sure I
>> see value in knowing about it? or even understanding it. Further b/c
>> it seems to exist outside the "norms" of practice (just
>> statistically speaking) it doesn't seem to communicate using
>> language that can engage the rest of the design community.
>
>
> Are we sure that RED isn't just a fancy term for "talent"? ;)
>
> Regardless, on any given day, or any given project, a vastly experienced
> designer can be wrong a hundred times and an inexperienced designer can be
> right a hundred times. Experience matters far less than judgment.
>
> -r-
>



-- 
Dave Malouf
http://davemalouf.com/
http://twitter.com/daveixd
http://scad.edu/industrialdesign
http://ixda.org/

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

Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rapid Expert Design (R.E.D.)

[Robert Hoekman Jr]

>
> While it is interest to know about this practice, I'm not so sure I
> see value in knowing about it? or even understanding it. Further b/c
> it seems to exist outside the "norms" of practice (just
> statistically speaking) it doesn't seem to communicate using
> language that can engage the rest of the design community.


Are we sure that RED isn't just a fancy term for "talent"? ;)

Regardless, on any given day, or any given project, a vastly experienced
designer can be wrong a hundred times and an inexperienced designer can be
right a hundred times. Experience matters far less than judgment.

-r-

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