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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
What does RED stand for again? Redundant Email Debating?
--- On Fri, 1/30/09, Dave Malouf dave@gmail.com wrote:
From: Dave Malouf dave@gmail.com
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
[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
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
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,
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,
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
Roger that
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Jared Spool jsp...@uie.com 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 jsp...@uie.com wrote:
On Jan 27, 2009,
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
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
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
I'm thinking about promoting a new methodology called R.A.D. (stands for
Really Awesome Design).
(i kid, jleft, i kid!)
-x-
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:51 AM, mark schraad mschr...@gmail.com wrote:
That is exactly how I read it. RED = RGD = really good designer
--
Christian Crumlish
I'm
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,
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
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
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
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
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?
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 :)
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
@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
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
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
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
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
This is the RED http://www.red.com/cameras/ you should be talking about!
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Jim Leftwich jl...@orbitnet.com 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
In response to Dave Malouf's questions (Part 1 of 3):
Q:
Basically, how would a young designer learn that they would want to
have RED be their methods? how would they go about connecting to a
master (or student of a master) to apprentice with?
A:
Just in general terms, I've found that most
In response to Dave Malouf's questions (Part 2 of 3):
Q:
If Adaptive Path and Cooper are poster children for the UCD design
practice today (yes, I know there are many others), who would you
point to besides yourself of designers or studios worth looking at
connecting with to find out more about
In response to Dave Malouf's questions (Part 3 of 3):
Q:
Is anyone else besides yourself using this term?
A:
I created the term Rapid Expert Design (RED) in order to better
frame a particular kind of design philosophy and approach. I find it
more generic and free of potentially misleading
RED obviously exists and obviously works; look at any top designer and how
they work. But the key is in the word expert. An expert is someone whose
knowledge base in a domain is so broad and deep, and who has had so much
practical experience in the domain that they have internalized sets of rules
Jim,
I think we totally agree on the apprenticeship model as a key approach to
training young designers. And I think we also agree on the use of design
patterns as a means of teaching/learning/building/sharing design knowledge.
In fact, design patterns can (and should) be seen as an effort to
So, if I was a person who practiced RED, would I get to say so without
sounding egotistical? It's not Genius Design, so I wouldn't be implying I'm
a genius, but I would still be saying I can design effective solutions
without following the rules, which isn't all that dissimilar.
What if I could
That is the whole key with research and decisions. The research, nor
the participants/users are making the decisions. You do the
diligence... all the research you can afford, can manage, or have
time for... but in the end, you, the designer must make the
decisions... and you must trust
Robert, my years of experience have pointed only to one thing as being
effective at both proving the effectivness of any designer (coming in
at the beginning), and that's proof of past exerience and outcomes.
This includes documentation of work and results in as much detail as
can be reviewed.
And Robert (Reimann), we are in complete agreement. It's all about
accumulated experience.
I would only add that part of that experience ihas to be in
exercising one's ability to make quick judgements and conceive
interrelated solutions. A designer has to learn to move (somewhat)
into the
This is particularly such a hard topic to discuss. There are many
nuances being outlined here that might be missing to the average
designer.
People should know that Jim is talking in terms of decades of
experience in his personal practice.
I also want to re-iterate when he says that only some
On Jan 27, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Robert Hoekman Jr wrote:
So, if I was a person who practiced RED, would I get to say so without
sounding egotistical? It's not Genius Design, so I wouldn't be
implying I'm
a genius, but I would still be saying I can design effective solutions
without following
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
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
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
I use instead the term, Rapid Expert Design or R.E.D.
Despite all this, one important detail is unclear to me.
You've described how R.E.D. can be learned, how it can be implemented, how
it affects product development, how much better a term it is than Genius
Design, and even what it is not.
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
