One thing I would add to this thread is the use of "story" in the
Cooper method as a way of doing requirements definition. This is more
fully developed in About Face 3 than in previous editions. When I
teach this book, I find "story" (through context scenarios, key
path scenarios, and validation sc
Hi Brandon,
>From my humble experience, there's no so much needs for the detail or
distilled version of the process. but instead, better have insight on
the metaphor of the process ( in his book, cooper compare it with
movie making). and the key points runs along the process:
1. concept model
2. b
Do you find that a Task Based approach silos your product?
I feel like it is too easy to focus on a task and end up forgetting
that it may only be part of a larger goal.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?p
Looks like a fairly standard approach.
I split design in to Concept and Detail and use an overlapped
iterative approach to phases - no water fall or throwing things over
the wall.
I also use a task based process rather than a goal based, this is an
evolution from goal based and attempts to define
I haven't, but I did recently come up with a distilled philosophy.
"To create a human connection in technological products with usable
form and content by understanding business and user desires, needs,
and motivations. "
My company uses a version called,
"Discover, Design, Develop, Deploy"
bu
Anybody have a super-distilled version of the Cooper design process? I'm
thinking something like:
1. Research user goals.
2. Refine research results.
3. Develop personas.
4. Write high-level scenarios.
Etc. etc.
I guess one could make one based on the chapter/section titles from About
