Expert/Rapid/Special Forces Design (was: Yet Another iPod Birth Story)

[Jim Leftwich]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

On Oct 18, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Dan Saffer wrote:

 > On Oct 18, 2006, at 7:24 AM, James Leftwich, IDSA wrote:
 >
 > > Hmmmm...  I guess I don't know why you're so skeptical about what
 > > Leander Kahney's reported here, Dan.  It matches everything I've
 > > heard from people who've talked to the same group of people  
mentioned
 > > in the article.
 >
 > I'm skeptical mostly because of the click wheel, which wasn't (and
 > still isn't) a very standard component in devices. And I'm certain
 > we're all aware that the same components can be assembled in many
 > different ways. Witness the proliferation of mobile phone form
 > factors, all from very similar components. Very few things,
 > especially a thing as nicely done as the iPod, simply snaps together.
 > The article made it seem easy, and I bet it wasn't.

I read the article and interpreted it to say that the form factor was  
pretty straightforward, and this matched what I'd heard through a  
short grapevine.  Pus the fact that while a wide variety of shapes  
were possible, Apple has a (recent) history of using fairly  
rectalinear form factors.  I'm sure they SLA'ed a number of form  
prototypes, but in the end, the form of the initial iPod followed  
very close the componentry, in the simplest and smallest form  
factor.  I'm not sure that they were implying the activities involved  
in doing that were "easy," but simply that that particular collection  
of components pointed to a fairly straightforward general form factor  
direction.

More on this notion of "what's easy" later, in context to some other  
issues involved here (which will go beyond the individual case of the  
iPod and its design origins).

 > >
 > > What I do think this thread is probably going to open up a  
discussion
 > > of, however, is the schism that exists between those who know that
 > > designers can sometimes, with a good deal of confidence, make fast,
 > > decisive design efforts that are likely to solve a number of  
problems
 > > and achieve success as products - and those that want to suggest  
that
 > > such efforts, are at best, lucky guesses.
 > >
 > > Not every problem or  unfulfilled need out there requires massive
 > > research efforts.  Despite your, um, interesting linguistic  
exercise
 > > in labeling these types of efforts, "genius design."
 >
 > I wasn't suggesting you have to be a genius to practice what I call
 > "genius design" (although it helps!) The term for me means a type of
 > design that is done just as you describe here: relying on the
 > experience and intuition of the designer to make the necessary design
 > decisions. It's how most design is done, I'd argue. Perhaps "genius"
 > was the wrong word, but I wanted something to convey the internal and
 > intuitive nature of the method.
 >
 > > In my opinion, it's largely the Interaction Design community that
 > > doesn't understand this.  Or at least a large segment of the
 > > community.
 >
 > The IxD community has emphasized UCD practices for a decade now. You
 > could argue over-emphasized. Which is why I put four approaches to
 > interaction design (UCD, activity-centered design, systems design,
 > and genius design) in my book.
 >
 > Dan

Let me elaborate a bit on why I find this set of issues to be a  
complex and problematic area of terminology, philosophy,  
interpretation, and approach in our diverse field of Interaction  
Design...  I want to start by saying I don't want to unnecessarily  
argumentative, because I find your book and ideas to be incredibly  
valuable resources to our community.  I'm commenting here, and  
strongly, because I think our discipline needs to have a much more  
out-in-the-open discussion of exactly what constitutes alternative  
approaches to Interaction Design from the UCD/Academic approaches  
that have held hegemony for so many years.

But I also come from a very different, more product-centric portion  
of the field, as well as the individual or small team consultancy  
aimed at lots of very niche areas of product and system development.  
These areas have many aspects that differ from the web, web  
application, desktop software, and other areas of Interaction Design  
that comprise much of what's done and discussed in the field.

First off, in your book, you list four different approaches.  User  
Centered Design, Activity-Based Design, Systems Design, and "what you  
call Genius Design."

I think the term "Genius Design" is among the most unfortunate and  
misleading terms that could've been chosen.

I question the terminology and linguistics of this approach to  
design, which I would term (and argue is more accurate) "Special  
Forces" or "Rapid," or "Expert" design.  I do agree with your primary  
point in your book that designers use a mix of these, often varying  
the degree or ratio of one or more of these approaches.  Most  
designers, myself included, use a mixture of approaches.  But in many  
cases, it's heavily weighted toward this fourth category, and it need  
not necessarily be a bad thing, a reluctant thing, or something to  
lament.

But first to tackle the linguistics.  A number of us in the field  
have historically had to approach complex design problems (large and  
complex systems, short development timeframes, limited budgets, small  
staffs or having to do things individually), and this shapes  
different types of strategies and builds different bodies of  
experience and judgement.  Nobody I know who practices to a large  
extent the type of design you characterize as "genius design," would  
ever characterize it as such.

Many people will easily claim they practice "User Centered  
Design," (I'd argue all good user experiences are designed with the  
user in mind.  I'm reminded of groups that call themselves something  
like "Concern Americans In Favor Of Freedom" etc.), and the same goes  
for "Activity-Based Design," and the methods of "Systems Design."  
But surely nobody would try to advertise their services of being able  
to come into complex situations and effect significant and effective  
design solutions by saying they practice, "Genius Design."

So I find this a misleading and, in a certain sense, dismissive  
terminology.  It colors and prejudices an approach that's not at all  
based on a practitioner's "genius," though in agreement with you, I'd  
say that in all fields, talent and smarts are a real benefit.  But  
what we're really talking about in this approach to design is not  
whatsoever, as you claim in your book, "the easiest way" to approach  
things.  (You say many people take this approach because it's,  
frankly, easier."

It's not simply that UCD practices have been been emphasized for a  
decade now. (I'd argue that it goes back farther than that, even if  
it wasn't labeled that).  If these practices were only being held up  
as *a* model, instead of often *the,* *the only,* or *the best*  
model, that would be great.  But the fact is, going back to the late  
1980s, (and we're coming up on the seventeenth anniversary of BayCHI,  
which I was a part of from its early beginnings), researchers and  
academics didn't just advocate a UCD-type approach to design.  They  
often, and still, have overlooked, denigrated, mischaracterized,  
undervalued, and otherwise dissed the types of expert design  
approaches that you, roughly, lump into the "genius design" category.

Over the past twenty years a number of terms have been used for  
pejorative effect, "Cowboy," "Lone Wolf," "Dictator looking to impose  
a personal vision," etc. in ways to denigrate and devalue what a  
growing number of practitioners recognize as a complex set of expert  
and experienced practices and applications of judgement.  What these  
quasi-strawmen terms, like "genius design," do however, is obscure  
the wide variety of expertise that goes into the best and most  
successful examples of this alternative type of approach.  An  
approach that's actually much better matched to the existing  
constraints of many real world projects, products, systems, and  
services.

Sure, there are plenty of efforts which could be considered to fall  
under your "genius design" category which could very well be  
characterized as lazy efforts, unintegrated kludges, lipstick-on-the-
pig efforts, etc..  But holding these up as exemplary of non-UCD (or  
other academically blessed) approaches does a grave disservice to the  
enormous field of products, systems, and services that would benefit  
by Special Forces or Rapid Design or Expert Design efforts.

Lone practitioners and small expert teams do not practice an easy  
craft or set of methods.  Parachuting into chaotic, and sometimes  
even hostile situations with outrageously complex sets of  
stakeholders, functionality, integration, and achieving successful  
and integrated design solutions - is anything but easy or simple.  
But it's not magic, and not limited to just the few we can dismiss as  
"geniuses."  It's an alternative and additional approach that can be  
studied and applied by more designers.

The skills and experiences necessary to do this type of design are no  
more mysterious than those that are most often described and  
advocated (such as UCD research and approaches), yet they are best  
learned in the real world, and through experience and teaming with  
more experienced practitioners.  In your book you say that it's  
often, unfortunately, beginners or experienced people that practice,  
"genius design."  This is true in one sense, but overlooks the fact  
that it's only through real experiences that one can gain expert  
knowledge and judgement, and the ability to cross-pollinate (sensible  
or successfully recontextualized aspects of) models from one product  
or system domain to another.  An example of how this has been done  
poorly in the past has involved taking desktop GUIs and trying to  
move them (sometimes without adequate recontextualizing and change)  
over to small, mobile devices.

The bottom line of what I'm stating for the broad Interaction Design  
community is that beyond what's talked about, written about, lectured  
about, and held out as UCD/Academic/Researcher dogma lies an entirely  
different continent of experiences, strategies, models, and  
approaches to successful outcomes.  They're not (necessarily, or  
just) accidents, lucky guesses, strokes of genius, easy ways out, or  
monuments to individual ego.

Back in 1998 I read a very excellent article in SCIENCE NEWS, "Seeing  
through expert eyes: ace decision makers may perceive distinctive  
worlds - intuition and experience in decision-making"

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n3_v154/ai_21003401

I highly recommend people read this informative article.

It gives an excellent overview into studies of how experts make rapid  
and "intuitive" decisions in complex situations.  I think it's no  
less applicable to Interaction Design than it is to firefighting, or  
piloting.

Our field deserves a much more serious examination of the many  
alternative and equally valid and successful models of approaching  
design.  Particularly given that our world is full of countless  
products, systems, and services that will never have the budgets,  
timeframes, and human resources to approach them via oft-described-
and-trumpeted UCD methodologies.

As Marc Rettig put it so well, many of us in the design field  
(practitioners and otherwise) are often fully occupied by our work to  
stop and deconstruct our internalized methods and expertise.  But I  
have to say, I chafe when I read alternative design approaches given  
short shrift, inadequate descriptions, or are outright denigrated.

But I say all of this with a great deal of respect for your book and  
efforts to provide an overview for our field.  I hope that our field  
will become inclusive enough to acknowledge the validity of and  
adequately describe what's really involved in other successful,  
alternative design methods and approaches.

Jim

James Leftwich, IDSA
Orbit Interaction
Palo Alto, California  94301
USA
http://www.orbitnet.com
jleft@...
[phone] mobile

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Dan Saffer]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]


On Oct 18, 2006, at 3:42 PM, James Leftwich, IDSA wrote:

> I think the term "Genius Design" is among the most unfortunate and
> misleading terms that could've been chosen.

First off, to be clear, I was never using the term "genius" in a  
pejorative sense. After I read your mail, I actually had to open my  
book and read the section on genius design again, to see if it had  
come across that way. I don't think it does--to me, it seems a fairly  
fair and balanced (if I dare use that phrase) view of the approach,  
noting (like the other approaches) its pros and cons. I use genius  
design myself, on nearly every project.

As far as its being misleading and unfortunate, well, I'd like to  
hear from others their opinion on that. It's not something I ever  
envisioned someone using to sell their services "I practice Genius  
Design."

>
> I question the terminology and linguistics of this approach to
> design, which I would term (and argue is more accurate) "Special
> Forces" or "Rapid," or "Expert" design.

This approach doesn't have to be rapid, nor done by an expert, and  
special forces seems, well, too militaristic. "Intuitive Design"  
could work, I guess. "Designer-centered design"?

> I do agree with your primary
> point in your book that designers use a mix of these, often varying
> the degree or ratio of one or more of these approaches.  Most
> designers, myself included, use a mixture of approaches.  But in many
> cases, it's heavily weighted toward this fourth category, and it need
> not necessarily be a bad thing, a reluctant thing, or something to
> lament.

Why did you think I was characterizing it as such? I note in the book  
that the iPod was created using this approach, and also talk about  
its power and utility.

>
> But first to tackle the linguistics.  A number of us in the field
> have historically had to approach complex design problems (large and
> complex systems, short development timeframes, limited budgets, small
> staffs or having to do things individually), and this shapes
> different types of strategies and builds different bodies of
> experience and judgement.  Nobody I know who practices to a large
> extent the type of design you characterize as "genius design," would
> ever characterize it as such.

Of course not. I never expected anyone to do so. But I needed a name  
for the type of design that only or mostly draws from the designer's  
own experience and genius (a synonym for expert, I might add) design  
seemed to fit.

>
> Many people will easily claim they practice "User Centered
> Design," (I'd argue all good user experiences are designed with the
> user in mind.  I'm reminded of groups that call themselves something
> like "Concern Americans In Favor Of Freedom" etc.), and the same goes
> for "Activity-Based Design," and the methods of "Systems Design."

All good designers design with the user in mind, naturally. But to  
quote Brenda Laurel: "Perhaps the single most pernicious sort of  
folly I have seen over nearly thirty years in the computer field is  
the belief on the part of engineers, designers, and marketing people  
is that they "just know" what will work for their audience. For  
extremely observant, experienced designer, this may indeed be true,  
but such people are exceedingly rare, and those who are most  
successful have "trained" their intuition by carefully observing and  
reaching deep understanding of certain kinds of people, cultures, and  
contexts. For the rest of us, that first "great idea" is usually a  
shot in the dark."



> But surely nobody would try to advertise their services of being able
> to come into complex situations and effect significant and effective
> design solutions by saying they practice, "Genius Design."

Why not say they practice interaction design? Few people introduce  
themselves as "User-centered Designer." It's the name of an approach,  
not a discipline.

>
> So I find this a misleading and, in a certain sense, dismissive
> terminology.  It colors and prejudices an approach that's not at all
> based on a practitioner's "genius," though in agreement with you, I'd
> say that in all fields, talent and smarts are a real benefit.  But
> what we're really talking about in this approach to design is not
> whatsoever, as you claim in your book, "the easiest way" to approach
> things.  (You say many people take this approach because it's,
> frankly, easier."

I'm sorry, but leaving aside the years of training and background one  
should have to use genius/intuitive approach, it is easier. Research  
and its analysis are damn hard work, and by leaving off that step,  
you remove a lot of effort and expense. No design method or process  
is truly easy, but drawing on one's own experience is considerably  
simpler than the recruiting, researching, and analyzing the data that  
one has to do in UCD or ACD.

>
> It's not simply that UCD practices have been been emphasized for a
> decade now. (I'd argue that it goes back farther than that, even if
> it wasn't labeled that).  If these practices were only being held up
> as *a* model, instead of often *the,* *the only,* or *the best*
> model, that would be great.  But the fact is, going back to the late
> 1980s, (and we're coming up on the seventeenth anniversary of BayCHI,
> which I was a part of from its early beginnings), researchers and
> academics didn't just advocate a UCD-type approach to design.  They
> often, and still, have overlooked, denigrated, mischaracterized,
> undervalued, and otherwise dissed the types of expert design
> approaches that you, roughly, lump into the "genius design" category.

This is due in part to the crappy products that developers and  
designers created without knowing anything about their users and  
their needs. And this isn't a thing of the past either.


>
> Lone practitioners and small expert teams do not practice an easy
> craft or set of methods.  Parachuting into chaotic, and sometimes
> even hostile situations with outrageously complex sets of
> stakeholders, functionality, integration, and achieving successful
> and integrated design solutions - is anything but easy or simple.
> But it's not magic, and not limited to just the few we can dismiss as
> "geniuses."  It's an alternative and additional approach that can be
> studied and applied by more designers.

I never said otherwise.

>
> As Marc Rettig put it so well, many of us in the design field
> (practitioners and otherwise) are often fully occupied by our work to
> stop and deconstruct our internalized methods and expertise.  But I
> have to say, I chafe when I read alternative design approaches given
> short shrift, inadequate descriptions, or are outright denigrated.

Obviously, it was difficult to even name this approach, much less  
describe it in any detail, mostly because individual ways of working  
and the use of experience to make design decisions is an impossible  
task.

I should also note that in no other interaction book I've read or  
seen do different approaches get laid out side-by-side like I do in  
D4I. It's a hard thing to do--and apparently, unpopular on both sides  
of the UCD debate. :)


BTW, anyone who wants to debate or discuss this with me in person,  
the first section of my all-day workshop next week in NYC ( http://
www.adaptivepath.com/events/2006/oct25/ )walks through the four  
approaches and compares and contrasts them. It's usually (as this  
exchange shows) a lively discussion.


Dan

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Jim Leftwich]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

These issues are extremely complex and difficult to adequately, or  
non-tediously discuss and examine in text-based forums.  I think we  
would agree that they're much easier and productive to discuss in  
live face-to-face forums, and with examples to provide necessary  
context.  The field is just that wide and diverse, and terminology  
can often be misconstrued and misinterpreted.  That's a problem  
that's not going to go away in the discipline of Interaction Design  
anytime soon.  But I don't want to unintentially offend,  
misinterpret, or be misinterpreted.  I think that all design efforts  
are valuable.  I start with that value.

I greatly appreciate this spirited discussion.  It's an important  
one.  And I have the utmost respect for opposing points of view,  
though there are some aspects that I strongly, and historically,  
disagreed with, and I rarely see opposition rising to meet statements  
of some of the more visible pundits in the field of user experience  
and Interaction Design.  So I will do it to represent the many ad  
hoc, solitary, small team with no time or budget, or rapid expert  
intuitive approaches out there who *don't* believe we're doing a half-
assed or non-optimum job of things.  I really don't like the term  
"designer-centric design" either, because design is always "solution-
centric" and hopefully wholistic, integrated, and multi-dimensional.


 >> Many people will easily claim they practice "User Centered
 >> Design," (I'd argue all good user experiences are designed with the
 >> user in mind.  I'm reminded of groups that call themselves something
 >> like "Concern Americans In Favor Of Freedom" etc.), and the same  
goes
 >> for "Activity-Based Design," and the methods of "Systems Design."
 >
 >All good designers design with the user in mind, naturally. But to
 >quote Brenda Laurel: "Perhaps the single most pernicious sort of
 >folly I have seen over nearly thirty years in the computer field is
 >the belief on the part of engineers, designers, and marketing people
 >is that they "just know" what will work for their audience. For
 >extremely observant, experienced designer, this may indeed be true,
 >but such people are exceedingly rare, and those who are most
 >successful have "trained" their intuition by carefully observing and
 >reaching deep understanding of certain kinds of people, cultures, and
 >contexts. For the rest of us, that first "great idea" is usually a
 >shot in the dark."

I'm particularly glad that you quoted Brenda Laurel.  Let's examine  
how she constructs that quote. First off, she starts off by framing a  
particular type of non-research-based design, as a "pernicious  
folly."  Then she cleverly escapes the, "But what about these  
successful examples" question by boxing it into the ,"Yeah, well  
there are a few, "exceedingly rare* individuals argument.  The "rest  
of us" tagline really underscores the attempt to distance the reader  
for any hope that they might also develop some effective, intuitive,  
and valuable judgement for use in a large range of situations calling  
for it.

This kind of dishonest framing of the IxD argument has been going on  
for years and years by the research community.  And to oppose it is,  
unfortunately, to risk accepting the framing to begin with.  I don't  
accept this framing.  Because nobody says, in the most simplistic and  
misunderstandable form, says they just know what will work (100%).  
But what they might indeed say is that they have a pretty good idea,  
after sizing everything up rapidly, of what is likely to be the best  
shot, given a fixed amount of time, resources, and need for  
significant innovation, development from scratch, or fixing of an old  
or poorly-working solution. It's a serious mistake to speak of design  
in universal terms, and make it sound as though all design problems  
start out as equal, or the situations in which they must be tackled.

This is a way of boxing and subsequently dismissing and  
deligitimizing any approach other than the one the research  
priesthood blesses.  If you can successfully paste the label of  
"genius," or "rare," on someone, you can paint them as an outlier  
that no longer needs to be considered seriously, let alone studied in  
order to discover and perhaps derive alternative methods that can be  
repeated and applied in appropriate situations and used by greater  
and greater numbers of designers.

Intuitive design approaches can and should be learned "by the rest of  
everyone."  Many more than would be acknowledged by that dismissive  
statement have the capability of tackling greater design challenges,  
take much larger intuitive risks, and thus achieve much larger design  
gains across the field.

Maybe some here remember how many millions of dollars the big group  
of heavily credentialed researchers of an place that billed itself as  
"the next Xerox PARC" burned through before they closed.  I think  
anyone involved in that effort should be careful before throwing  
around terms like "pernicious folly."  Particularly, when such terms  
are aimed at those that may, for reasons of lack of budget, time,  
resources, or other constraints can very well make expert and  
intuitive decisions in complex situations.

Let's definitely begin a discipline-wide examination of the ratio of  
money-spent:success-of-design.  Many large corporations have large  
staffs of UX, Usability, Research, and associated disciplines.  How  
many of them truly produce paradigm-shifting, profitable, best-of-
class products?

We have a fundamental and serious schism in the discipline of  
Interaction Design.  I think we've got plenty of researchers and  
academics and some consultancies ready to cast aspersions on those  
that don't follow their methods.  But bear in mind that I, and no  
other designers I'm aware of, are saying research is not valuable,  
nor are other methods, including UCD and ACD not completely viable  
methods.

It's non-UCD/ACD methods and practitioners, in the form of fictional  
strawmen, that continue to be lambasted by the pundits.  I, and  
others, would like to see this stop.  I'll likely be assailed as  
coming from an egotistical position, but nothing could be further  
from the truth.  This is not about any one particular designer's  
approach or methods, but more an appeal on behalf of the many single  
and small team design efforts out there that innovate and improve  
user experiences a great deal with very little resources, or time.

I argue that *many, many* more designers could learn to be excellent  
intuitive designers, capable of bringing successful solutions to a  
much larger set of products, systems, and services.

But by throwing around statements such as the one you quote above,  
there are many young designers that will never take bold steps.    
They'll never understand that they can indeed, with careful thought  
and insights (and I argue exposure to other designers that may mentor  
them) learn to hone their intuition.  Start small on small products  
and work up from there.  Take big risks on small projects.  Then take  
big risks on larger projects.

A designer can do no worse than some of the well-researched multi-
million-dollar flops!


 >> So I find this a misleading and, in a certain sense, dismissive
 >> terminology.  It colors and prejudices an approach that's not at all
 >> based on a practitioner's "genius," though in agreement with you,  
I'd
 >> say that in all fields, talent and smarts are a real benefit.  But
 >> what we're really talking about in this approach to design is not
 >> whatsoever, as you claim in your book, "the easiest way" to approach
 >> things.  (You say many people take this approach because it's,
 >> frankly, easier."
 >
 >I'm sorry, but leaving aside the years of training and background one
 >should have to use genius/intuitive approach, it is easier. Research
 >and its analysis are damn hard work, and by leaving off that step,
 >you remove a lot of effort and expense. No design method or process
 >is truly easy, but drawing on one's own experience is considerably
 >simpler than the recruiting, researching, and analyzing the data that
 >one has to do in UCD or ACD.


This is where we're really far apart.  What you're failing to  
acknowledge is that in many types of situations where the designer,  
or small team has, for example, one or two months to assess and  
design an entire product or system architecture (let's use the  
example of a mobile phone OS UI system/language and application  
framework), I can guarantee that 70-hour weeks of difficult and  
complex work, often with small teams, is no picnic.  Calling it easy  
is offensive, and that's what I could not more strongly object to. If  
95% of that time is spent designing and completing to great detail  
and documentation, and it's successful, then it does not follow that  
it was any easier.  I can't speak for your experiences, but I will  
not accept that any of my small team's efforts were easy in the  
slightest.  They were grueling right down to the deadline.  It's just  
that the hard effort was spent in other activities other than what  
you, and others, might deem necessary.  Most projects have very tight  
constraints.  Devoting significant chunks of time to research may be  
necessary in some projects, but it's certainly not in all projects,  
or at least the only way to expect success.

No practitioner I'm aware of would make the ludicrous charge that  
research is easy, and that's part of my point.  Nobody's attacking or  
denigrating UCD or ACD, etc..  What I, and others who work in these  
sole proprietorship and small team situations are asking is that we  
and our approaches not be denigrated, sidelined, explained away as  
"extremely rare," or most offensively of all - called "easy."

I can assure you, Dan, that the methods you describe are not the only  
"damn hard work" out there in the Interaction Design field.  This  
attitude is primarily why I feel the urge not to attack the methods  
you advocate, but rather stand up for those you claim, wrongly, are  
"easy" and others claim, even more wrongly, are "pernicious folly."


Jim

James Leftwich, IDSA
Orbit Interaction
Palo Alto, California  94301
USA
http://www.orbitnet.com
jleft@...
[phone] mobile
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Sebi Tauciuc]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

On 10/19/06, Dan Saffer <dan@...> wrote:

>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2006, at 3:42 PM, James Leftwich, IDSA wrote:
>
> > I think the term "Genius Design" is among the most unfortunate and
> > misleading terms that could've been chosen.
>
> First off, to be clear, I was never using the term "genius" in a
> pejorative sense. After I read your mail, I actually had to open my
> book and read the section on genius design again, to see if it had
> come across that way. I don't think it does--to me, it seems a fairly
> fair and balanced (if I dare use that phrase) view of the approach,
> noting (like the other approaches) its pros and cons. I use genius
> design myself, on nearly every project.
>
> As far as its being misleading and unfortunate, well, I'd like to
> hear from others their opinion on that. It's not something I ever
> envisioned someone using to sell their services "I practice Genius
> Design."
>

I haven't had a chance to read the book, but I have read about it on this
list and in a couple of articles on the web. It was the first time I
personally heard the ideea of a designer designing based more on his own
experience being actually acknowledged. And I could really appreciate that,
because, indeed, a lot of design is being done like that and no one seemed
to give it much credit. Or at least it wasn't discussed that much - it
seemed to be a kind of tabu for [most of] the community or something.
So whatever term will stick in the end, I think it's still very important
that there is something to name in the first place.

Personally, I could understand what the term meant instantly. I did find a
bit of a warning in there, in the sense of "Don't do this if you don't know
what you're doing". And I think there must be some kind of warning for the
approach, because when it's used by non-experts (programmers or decision
makers could also do 'rapid design' if they had to, right?), it may indeed
not produce the best results.


>
> > I question the terminology and linguistics of this approach to
> > design, which I would term (and argue is more accurate) "Special
> > Forces" or "Rapid," or "Expert" design.
>
> This approach doesn't have to be rapid, nor done by an expert, and
> special forces seems, well, too militaristic. "Intuitive Design"
> could work, I guess. "Designer-centered design"?
>

Personally, I like the "Expert Design" name.

>
> > So I find this a misleading and, in a certain sense, dismissive
> > terminology.  It colors and prejudices an approach that's not at all
> > based on a practitioner's "genius," though in agreement with you, I'd
> > say that in all fields, talent and smarts are a real benefit.  But
> > what we're really talking about in this approach to design is not
> > whatsoever, as you claim in your book, "the easiest way" to approach
> > things.  (You say many people take this approach because it's,
> > frankly, easier."
>
> I'm sorry, but leaving aside the years of training and background one
> should have to use genius/intuitive approach, it is easier. Research
> and its analysis are damn hard work, and by leaving off that step,
> you remove a lot of effort and expense. No design method or process
> is truly easy, but drawing on one's own experience is considerably
> simpler than the recruiting, researching, and analyzing the data that
> one has to do in UCD or ACD.
>
>

I agree. It's not easy to become an expert, but it's easier to design when
you are one.




--
Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Sebi Tauciuc]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

On 10/19/06, James Leftwich, IDSA <jleft@...> wrote:

>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
>
> I greatly appreciate this spirited discussion.  It's an important
> one.  And I have the utmost respect for opposing points of view,
> though there are some aspects that I strongly, and historically,
> disagreed with, and I rarely see opposition rising to meet statements
> of some of the more visible pundits in the field of user experience
> and Interaction Design.  So I will do it to represent the many ad
> hoc, solitary, small team with no time or budget, or rapid expert
> intuitive approaches out there who *don't* believe we're doing a half-
> assed or non-optimum job of things.  I really don't like the term
> "designer-centric design" either, because design is always "solution-
> centric" and hopefully wholistic, integrated, and multi-dimensional.
>
> I agree this is a very important discussion, and you did a very good thing

to start it

> I'm particularly glad that you quoted Brenda Laurel.  Let's examine
> how she constructs that quote. First off, she starts off by framing a
> particular type of non-research-based design, as a "pernicious
> folly."  Then she cleverly escapes the, "But what about these
> successful examples" question by boxing it into the ,"Yeah, well
> there are a few, "exceedingly rare* individuals argument.  The "rest
> of us" tagline really underscores the attempt to distance the reader
> for any hope that they might also develop some effective, intuitive,
> and valuable judgement for use in a large range of situations calling
> for it.

The dismissal of this approach is surely a problem. And I can see (and I
think it is clear) where it started: for many years, a lot of design has
been done by non-professionals or unexperienced designers. And most of the
times, in a hurry and with not too much concern for the user. This lead to
bad design in a huge number of situations. And for the benefit of the
products and the users, it had to be somehow discouraged on a large scale.
Unfortunately, it also dismissed the success stories: when things are done
in a hurry because there is no other way, when decisions are made without
much user research because there are no resources for user research, and so
on, and still the products can succeed - because they are made by people who
really know what they're doing - experts.

...Maybe we should make here a parallel with "Agile Development", and simply
start accepting that design is done in the real world, and not an ideal one:
user-research is good, but there might just not be the resources to do it;
there will always be deadlines; we will always have programmers that want to
make their life easier; we will always have stake-holders who just want
'this feature'; products have to make money to be successful etc. We are
designing under a great number of constraints. We cannot pretend they aren't
there, we have to accept them. Only after accepting them, we can start to
ask ourselves: Now, what can I do to make this a good product?


>
> It's non-UCD/ACD methods and practitioners, in the form of fictional
> strawmen, that continue to be lambasted by the pundits.  I, and
> others, would like to see this stop.  I'll likely be assailed as
> coming from an egotistical position, but nothing could be further
> from the truth.  This is not about any one particular designer's
> approach or methods, but more an appeal on behalf of the many single
> and small team design efforts out there that innovate and improve
> user experiences a great deal with very little resources, or time.


Thank you, in their behalf! :)

I argue that *many, many* more designers could learn to be excellent

> intuitive designers, capable of bringing successful solutions to a
> much larger set of products, systems, and services.
>
> But by throwing around statements such as the one you quote above,
> there are many young designers that will never take bold steps.
> They'll never understand that they can indeed, with careful thought
> and insights (and I argue exposure to other designers that may mentor
> them) learn to hone their intuition.  Start small on small products
> and work up from there.  Take big risks on small projects.  Then take
> big risks on larger projects.

I like to read this kind of statements every now and then. They are both
encouraging and motivating.


> No practitioner I'm aware of would make the ludicrous charge that
> research is easy, and that's part of my point.  Nobody's attacking or
> denigrating UCD or ACD, etc..  What I, and others who work in these
> sole proprietorship and small team situations are asking is that we
> and our approaches not be denigrated, sidelined, explained away as
> "extremely rare," or most offensively of all - called "easy."


Bot it is more fun, isn't it? At least for me it is, I admit it.  I like to
design more than I like to research. I like to create products more than
create personas. I like to discover solutions. Maybe that's what makes
research seem more difficult to some of us. Because it's simply not so fun.
Your teams work day and night on those projects, right? But do they like it?
They love it! Do I have flow when I work on personas? Well, not always. Do I
have flow when I try to design solutions? Hell, I could stay thinking all
day long.
...Maybe that't the difference. And maybe Dan is just trying to say that
going straight to design is a shortcut we can afford when we know what we
are doing. A shortcut that helps us stay in time and in budget. And again,
maybe it's the wording that caused the problem.
But that's just my opinion.

I can assure you, Dan, that the methods you describe are not the only

> "damn hard work" out there in the Interaction Design field.  This
> attitude is primarily why I feel the urge not to attack the methods
> you advocate, but rather stand up for those you claim, wrongly, are
> "easy" and others claim, even more wrongly, are "pernicious folly."
>
>
> Jim
>
> James Leftwich, IDSA
> Orbit Interaction
> Palo Alto, California  94301
> USA
> http://www.orbitnet.com
> jleft@...
> [phone] mobile
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists@...
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

Sebi


--
Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Dan Saffer]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

I just want to toss out a couple of statements here about this  
conversation in general, since I have a set of wireframes due today. :)

UCD and its methodologies arose because of the failings of "intuitive/
expert/genius design." And indeed, our world is filled with ugly,  
graceless, poorly functioning things that were all created by people  
who felt they were designed just fine. If you are inexperienced, you  
could do worse than by talking to users and figuring out what they  
need and what the domain requires.

The four approaches to interaction design can be used in combination,  
and in practice, usually are. I might use UCD methods for some  
things, genius design for others.

No design work is easy. But if you remove some of a process (in this  
case research and analysis), it logically stands to reason, if  
everything else is the same, that a process that doesn't include  
research will be easier. I'm not sure why you think it would be as  
difficult or more difficult without research, Jim. It simply doesn't  
make sense, logically. Research doesn't mean doing less, it means  
doing more. Much more. Look at how many organizations balk at doing  
research for just this reason.

I will agree that not all projects require research. It's probably a  
50/50 split in my own work. But for unfamiliar domains, user bases,  
cultures, etc. I highly recommend it as a basic method.

I never said genius design was rare; I said the opposite, in fact:  
it's how most design is done.

Dan



Dan Saffer, IDSA
book http://www.designingforinteraction.com
work http://www.adaptivepath.com
site   http://www.odannyboy.com


________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Mark Schraad]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

The problem I have with the ?Genius Design? label is that the definition lumps two very different types of designers into one group based upon the fact that they may not include user research in their process.

Many designers, either because they do not know any better or do not want to extend the effort, ignore the context of use and goals/actions of the user. Consideration of the interdependencies between the user, the object being designed, any interface needed, the goals and actions taken, and the environment are what, in my opinion, define interaction design. As a very simple example, a product brochure for consumption at a trade show would read and look remarkably different than a brochure for the same product that is mailed out upon request. The context of use is different and should be a primary consideration. A large percentage of designers do not include this in their process.

A second group of designers may have extensive knowledge of context through previous research, design experience and/or an insight into benefits that the user cannot or does not grasp. This leadership position is crucial to development of break through products. Too much can be problematic as we have seen through dramatic product failures faulted only in being too far ahead of their time.

While I believe that consideration of context, along with user research are crucial tools that every designer should embrace, clearly neither are absolutely necessary. There are many, many examples of extraordinarily successful products that were designed without consideration of context or user research.

Design is a young field. We still have much to learn.
 
On Thursday, October 19, 2006, at 05:10PM, Dan Saffer <dan@...> wrote:

>[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
>I just want to toss out a couple of statements here about this  
>conversation in general, since I have a set of wireframes due today. :)
>
>UCD and its methodologies arose because of the failings of "intuitive/
>expert/genius design." And indeed, our world is filled with ugly,  
>graceless, poorly functioning things that were all created by people  
>who felt they were designed just fine. If you are inexperienced, you  
>could do worse than by talking to users and figuring out what they  
>need and what the domain requires.
>
>The four approaches to interaction design can be used in combination,  
>and in practice, usually are. I might use UCD methods for some  
>things, genius design for others.
>
>No design work is easy. But if you remove some of a process (in this  
>case research and analysis), it logically stands to reason, if  
>everything else is the same, that a process that doesn't include  
>research will be easier. I'm not sure why you think it would be as  
>difficult or more difficult without research, Jim. It simply doesn't  
>make sense, logically. Research doesn't mean doing less, it means  
>doing more. Much more. Look at how many organizations balk at doing  
>research for just this reason.
>
>I will agree that not all projects require research. It's probably a  
>50/50 split in my own work. But for unfamiliar domains, user bases,  
>cultures, etc. I highly recommend it as a basic method.
>
>I never said genius design was rare; I said the opposite, in fact:  
>it's how most design is done.
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>Dan Saffer, IDSA
>book http://www.designingforinteraction.com
>work http://www.adaptivepath.com
>site   http://www.odannyboy.com
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>To post to this list ....... discuss@...
>List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
>List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
>(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
>Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
>Questions .................. lists@...
>Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
>Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>
>

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Christian Crumlish]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

> From: mark Schraad
>
> Design is a young field. We still have much to learn.
>  

Is it really? Relative to what? It may not be the world's oldest (or
second-oldest) profession, but I have trouble seeing it as young or new.

Christian Crumlish
Director of Strategic Services
http://extractable.com/
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Mark Schraad]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

>
>> From: Mark Schraad
>>
>> Design is a young field. We still have much to learn.
>>
>
> Is it really? Relative to what? It may not be the world's oldest (or
> second-oldest) profession, but I have trouble seeing it as young or  
> new.
>
> Christian Crumlish

I think of design as a young profession not in terms of time, but in  
terms of maturity.

When thinking of mature professions, things that come to mind are:

Lots of PhD's in academic settings.
Strong professional organizations
General agreement on definitions amongst practitioners
A steady stream of research that consistently advances the profession
Wide public awareness and recognition of the professions contributions

Design is only beginning to reflect these things. Did anyone call  
themselves a designer just a hundred years ago? How about a lawyer,  
politician, baker, fisherman, farmer, doctor, soldier, blacksmith,  
play write, musician, etc...

That is why I see design as a young profession. With that comes great  
promise - and that is a good thing.

Mark



________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Dave Chiu]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Not to instigate a thread regression, but FWIW, there's another  
(older) article in Wired about the birth of the iPod (Wired seems to  
like these kinds of stories!):

Inside Look at Birth of the IPod: http://www.wired.com/news/mac/ 
0,64286-0.html

The part I find particularly interesting concerns the polycarbonate  
containers they placed the components into while testing  
functionality. In the most recent article all that's said about them is:

> To make them easy to debug, prototypes were built inside  
> polycarbonate containers about the size of a large shoebox.
(Straight Dope on the IPod's Birth: http://wired.com/news/columns/ 
cultofmac/0,71956-1.html)

But in the older article:

> Knauss said all the iPod prototypes -- and there were several --  
> were sealed tight inside a reinforced plastic box about the size of  
> a shoebox.
>
> "They put the buttons and the screen in creative locations all over  
> the box so people couldn't tell what product was inside it and how  
> small it was," Knauss said. "They always put the controls in  
> different places -- the scroll wheel on the side, the screen on the  
> top -- to make sure it wasn't predictable what the end design was.  
> The only thing accessible was the jacks."

...making the whole "birth of the iPod" story rather Rashomon-esque.

dave
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Jim Leftwich]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

 > UCD and its methodologies arose because of the failings of  
"intuitive/expert/genius design."


I think this statement says a lot about the fallacy of  
oversimplification behind the term, "genius design."  Not to mention  
"intuitive," or let alone, "expert."

If a person is truly a genius, (as opposed to the term being used in  
a sneering, derogatory, and pejorative context), and there is a  
methodology behind the approach (which any actual experienced expert  
would employ), albeit one different from what UCD advocates, then it  
wouldn't produce a field mostly consisting of failures.  I know of no  
exahaustive, serious study of the many methods and experiences *of  
the full range* of people using non-UCD types of approaches to  
interaction design.  So instead, we have these assertions about a  
overly-broad strawman category.

Perhaps two, if not more categories in place of one labeled "genius  
design" would be better.  As it's currently being defined, it would  
probably be better renamed, "inexperienced, unskilled, untalented  
design," since that's exactly what's going to produce failure.

There are plenty, PLENTY, of failures all around us.  Many  
corporations do indeed pursue research. UCD methodologies are not  
new.  What's incredibly objectionable in this polemic approach by UCD  
advocates, is that designing in any other approach is a folly, or  
"has produced many failures."  Just a few token, and relatively  
unexamined examples are held up to underscore the assertion that  
intuition or experience is a doomed or merely egotistical approach.

There are many examples of failure of design that do involve  
research.  And it happens at different levels.  An otherwise even  
successful design, arrived at by any method, might still fail because  
what was really needed was a larger scale of innovation, rather than  
just a fix or refinement to an existing product, system, or service.  
So there's plenty of failure to go around.

The problem is that more and more pundits are now claiming that only  
academically-approved research methods are capable of producing the  
best design results. This is merely an assertion.

I'd argue very strongly, and from a long history of experience, that  
engineers kludging together products, or products, systems and  
services being feature-bloated by marketing departments is in no way  
whatsoever, "genius" or representative of skilled and experienced  
interaction designers employing expert, rapid, special forces, or  
agile approaches.  The term "genius," as used in "genius design" is  
used in a completely meaningless way.

An actual expert interaction designer or architect would have a  
history of smaller lessons and successes (and failures, hopefully non-
catastrophic ones) in their past.  There's a huge range of situations  
where such experience can produce, without great amounts of research,  
excellent results.  This is why I suggest that a legitimate and  
wholly-underdiscussed, under-represented, and often outright  
mischaracterized approach to design - one of craftsmanship and expert  
experience and judgement - is sadly and inexcusably overlooked in  
these highly judgemental views coming from the research and academic  
community, and championed by some consultants.

By repeating offensive claims that designing without UCD methodolgies  
is easier, much of a different type of hard work and difficult time-
sensitive decisions are undervalued.

Again, I'm not assailing UCD.  I'm imploring UCD and other methodolgy  
advocates to be careful about how they oversimplify, mischaracterize,  
and otherwise fail a valid and important sector of the Interaction  
Design community.

It's particularly interesting that claims are made that UCD arose in  
reaction to design failures.  I would say that it arose because doing  
expert design is difficult, not inherently impossible or a  
"pernicious folly."  It's interesting that in the vacuum that existed  
because many successful examples were not adequately known or  
publicized, that the organized academic and research communities set  
about spending the decade of the 1990s pretending that there never  
was much success other than through their methods, that they would  
advocate in order to "save" the discipline.

There's an entire untold story out there, involving many successful  
design efforts using expert, intuitive, special forces, and agile  
approaches.

In mountain climbing there are traditional methods, which involve a  
large-scale and organized assault of a major peak with multiple  
camps, armies of porters, and fixed lines.  But there are others like  
Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler, who were the first to climb all  
fourteen of the world's 8,000 meter peaks "Alpine Style," (without  
supplemental oxygen or fixed ropes).  They were not "geniuses."  They  
were skilled, fit, experienced, and practiced a different philosophy  
and approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner

The discipline of Interaction Design is indeed a young one.  I  
personally approach it as I was trained, as an industrial designer  
and through my study of the history of architecture. There are  
thousands and thousands of projects out there that could use  
experienced and expert approaches that can't afford or don't have the  
resources or time for many approaches or methodologies most often  
discussed.  These are excellent targets for Expert Design.  Or "Agile  
Design," a term which I also like, and that I'm glad someone on this  
list offered up.

I really don't care that much about labels, except when they're used  
to divide and discredit alternative approaches.

Expert, Special Forces, Skunkworks, Intuitive, or Agile methods of  
design are *NOT* the enemy.

They are just as valid and just as deserving of the amount of study  
and examination as other methods.  They have been smeared by a broad  
and oversimplistic brush for far too many years.

Jim

James Leftwich, IDSA
Orbit Interaction
Palo Alto, California  USA
http://www.orbitnet.com

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Scott Bower]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

UCD, seems to me at least, the mantra of academics and some in
SIGCHI/Human Factors who have, for some reason, taken a defensive
posture. Design, and it's methodologies, is the realization of many
different fields of research and study. Anyone that studies design
history, particularly Industrial Design in the USA, can understand that
UCD is but one approach to countless others that Dan didn't even touch
on. Of course, I do not need to point that out to the people in IxDA.
Just because an approach fails to materialize (for whatever success
metric is used) in the market doesn't make it any less worthy. In fact,
a world without art, experimentation, and failure would be a place
without any type of design. UCD has been put on a pedestal  and it is
definitely the method of choice for systems that have a high degree of
complexity and zero tolerance for failure by the insertion of human
interactions. I can say with confidence that R+D firms I have recently
visited that are on the bleeding edge and have been using UCD to the
exclusion of other methods are getting "washed out" solutions. As a
result, they are increasingly contracting designer/artists taught by
the likes of Golan Levin (those types are not on this list) to find
innovation. I have alot of respect for organizations like the Eyebeam
Openlab who value the idea of creativity.

UCD is not the best approach for breakthroughs in interactive
information design and I believe the biggest stakeholders in UCD would
agree. The breakthroughs in design going back the last 100 years were a
result of good design solutions sometimes sold under the guise of UCD
("See, there will be less lawsuits with this new design based on these
tests") in order to sell it to the decision makers. I don't think I
have ever worked on a project where a stake was thrown into the ground
and one particular method was used to the exclusion of others. But
sometimes breakthroughs are not what is needed and it is refreshing to
see that in the US Healthcare system the concept of UCD is finally
taking hold. Patient Centered Design.

It is unfortunate that Design schools, in the States at least, are
failing to adequately educate designers and that a term like "Genius
Design" or whatever we call it ("Creativity based on research"?) even
has to exist. I do like the fact that it is controversial, that is
exactly the kind of shake up the education community at large needs.

scott

On Oct 22, 2006, at 6:14 PM, James Leftwich, IDSA wrote:

> What's incredibly objectionable in this polemic approach by UCD
> advocates, is that designing in any other approach is a folly, or
> "has produced many failures."  Just a few token, and relatively
> unexamined examples are held up to underscore the assertion that
> intuition or experience is a doomed or merely egotistical approach.

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Mark Schraad]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

I can argue both side of this -  but I think some of your claims here  
are skewed.

Successful products are to some degree a matter of relative value and  
effectiveness. 50 years ago design research was unheard of. So of  
course there were many product produced without the aid of research  
that were successful. They were the de-facto and often "good enough"  
or the best available.

As psychology advance so then did market research. As applied to  
product design these methods were less than adequate. Surveys and  
such do not reveal much about the why - only the what. Quantitative  
research often provides only indicators, not conclusive direction.  
When conjoint analysis was developed as a method of measuring utility  
allowing designers to determine a value that equated to price as well  
as data for evaluating the mix of features and benefits. Since  
Marriot used conjoint exclusively to design the Courtyard model they  
have dominated the profitable end of that industry.

Design research on the front end using ethnography has revealed  
previously untapped opportunities. Admittedly there have been  
failures, but this is a young and evolving process. As the  
reliability increases, and it will, the sureness of interpretation  
will provide better and more reliable direction. As a designer I will  
always make use of any data available, and will encourage companies  
and clients I work with to gather as much as is possible.

All of that being said, there is little doubt that there will  
continue to be exceptionally enlightened individuals with the  
potential to design well beyond the rear view methodologies of  
research. Predicting the future is not likely to be a reliable  
process in design.

There is an art to the long view (pardon the blatant rip off) and  
exceptional vision will always be worth gold.

Onward and upward. Excellent discussion.

Mark


On Oct 22, 2006, at 6:14 PM, James Leftwich, IDSA wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted  
> material.]
>
>> UCD and its methodologies arose because of the failings of
> "intuitive/expert/genius design."
>
>
> I think this statement says a lot about the fallacy of
> oversimplification behind the term, "genius design."  Not to mention
> "intuitive," or let alone, "expert."
>
> If a person is truly a genius, (as opposed to the term being used in
> a sneering, derogatory, and pejorative context), and there is a
> methodology behind the approach (which any actual experienced expert
> would employ), albeit one different from what UCD advocates, then it
> wouldn't produce a field mostly consisting of failures.  I know of no
> exahaustive, serious study of the many methods and experiences *of
> the full range* of people using non-UCD types of approaches to
> interaction design.  So instead, we have these assertions about a
> overly-broad strawman category.
>
> Perhaps two, if not more categories in place of one labeled "genius
> design" would be better.  As it's currently being defined, it would
> probably be better renamed, "inexperienced, unskilled, untalented
> design," since that's exactly what's going to produce failure.
>
> There are plenty, PLENTY, of failures all around us.  Many
> corporations do indeed pursue research. UCD methodologies are not
> new.  What's incredibly objectionable in this polemic approach by UCD
> advocates, is that designing in any other approach is a folly, or
> "has produced many failures."  Just a few token, and relatively
> unexamined examples are held up to underscore the assertion that
> intuition or experience is a doomed or merely egotistical approach.
>
> There are many examples of failure of design that do involve
> research.  And it happens at different levels.  An otherwise even
> successful design, arrived at by any method, might still fail because
> what was really needed was a larger scale of innovation, rather than
> just a fix or refinement to an existing product, system, or service.
> So there's plenty of failure to go around.
>
> The problem is that more and more pundits are now claiming that only
> academically-approved research methods are capable of producing the
> best design results. This is merely an assertion.
>
> I'd argue very strongly, and from a long history of experience, that
> engineers kludging together products, or products, systems and
> services being feature-bloated by marketing departments is in no way
> whatsoever, "genius" or representative of skilled and experienced
> interaction designers employing expert, rapid, special forces, or
> agile approaches.  The term "genius," as used in "genius design" is
> used in a completely meaningless way.
>
> An actual expert interaction designer or architect would have a
> history of smaller lessons and successes (and failures, hopefully non-
> catastrophic ones) in their past.  There's a huge range of situations
> where such experience can produce, without great amounts of research,
> excellent results.  This is why I suggest that a legitimate and
> wholly-underdiscussed, under-represented, and often outright
> mischaracterized approach to design - one of craftsmanship and expert
> experience and judgement - is sadly and inexcusably overlooked in
> these highly judgemental views coming from the research and academic
> community, and championed by some consultants.
>
> By repeating offensive claims that designing without UCD methodolgies
> is easier, much of a different type of hard work and difficult time-
> sensitive decisions are undervalued.
>
> Again, I'm not assailing UCD.  I'm imploring UCD and other methodolgy
> advocates to be careful about how they oversimplify, mischaracterize,
> and otherwise fail a valid and important sector of the Interaction
> Design community.
>
> It's particularly interesting that claims are made that UCD arose in
> reaction to design failures.  I would say that it arose because doing
> expert design is difficult, not inherently impossible or a
> "pernicious folly."  It's interesting that in the vacuum that existed
> because many successful examples were not adequately known or
> publicized, that the organized academic and research communities set
> about spending the decade of the 1990s pretending that there never
> was much success other than through their methods, that they would
> advocate in order to "save" the discipline.
>
> There's an entire untold story out there, involving many successful
> design efforts using expert, intuitive, special forces, and agile
> approaches.
>
> In mountain climbing there are traditional methods, which involve a
> large-scale and organized assault of a major peak with multiple
> camps, armies of porters, and fixed lines.  But there are others like
> Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler, who were the first to climb all
> fourteen of the world's 8,000 meter peaks "Alpine Style," (without
> supplemental oxygen or fixed ropes).  They were not "geniuses."  They
> were skilled, fit, experienced, and practiced a different philosophy
> and approach.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner
>
> The discipline of Interaction Design is indeed a young one.  I
> personally approach it as I was trained, as an industrial designer
> and through my study of the history of architecture. There are
> thousands and thousands of projects out there that could use
> experienced and expert approaches that can't afford or don't have the
> resources or time for many approaches or methodologies most often
> discussed.  These are excellent targets for Expert Design.  Or "Agile
> Design," a term which I also like, and that I'm glad someone on this
> list offered up.
>
> I really don't care that much about labels, except when they're used
> to divide and discredit alternative approaches.
>
> Expert, Special Forces, Skunkworks, Intuitive, or Agile methods of
> design are *NOT* the enemy.
>
> They are just as valid and just as deserving of the amount of study
> and examination as other methods.  They have been smeared by a broad
> and oversimplistic brush for far too many years.
>
> Jim
>
> James Leftwich, IDSA
> Orbit Interaction
> Palo Alto, California  USA
> http://www.orbitnet.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists@...
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Oleh Kovalchuke]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

On 10/22/06, James Leftwich, IDSA <jleft@...> wrote:

"Perhaps two, if not more categories in place of one labeled "genius design"
would be better.  As it's currently being defined, it would probably be
better renamed, "inexperienced, unskilled, untalented design," since that's
exactly what's going to produce failure."

 In any design process there are at least two important parts: information
about future use of the product, and then there is creation part. Quality
information facilitates, but does not guarantee brilliant final creation. On
the other hand, poor information will most probably impede creation of
useful, good designs.

"Misinformed", and occasionally "uninformed design" would be better labels
for *failed* "genius design" to distinguish it from "UCD", reflecting the
fact that significant part of UCD process is gathering information about the
future use.

The information can be accumulated via UCD research or via extensive
personal ("expert") experience in the field. Creation, on the other hand, is
driven by specific individuals.

Since creation part depends on personal abilities, the value of individual
"expert design" can be enhanced, but cannot be replaced by information
provided by UCD research. Thus "untalented design" is always a possibility.
However one can find "untalented" designs created either via user-centered
or via less-obviously-user centered process.

--
Oleh Kovalchuke
Interaction Design is Design of Time
http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm

>
> > UCD and its methodologies arose because of the failings of
> "intuitive/expert/genius design."
>
>
> I think this statement says a lot about the fallacy of
> oversimplification behind the term, "genius design."  Not to mention
> "intuitive," or let alone, "expert."
>
> If a person is truly a genius, (as opposed to the term being used in
> a sneering, derogatory, and pejorative context), and there is a
> methodology behind the approach (which any actual experienced expert
> would employ), albeit one different from what UCD advocates, then it
> wouldn't produce a field mostly consisting of failures.  I know of no
> exahaustive, serious study of the many methods and experiences *of
> the full range* of people using non-UCD types of approaches to
> interaction design.  So instead, we have these assertions about a
> overly-broad strawman category.
>
> Perhaps two, if not more categories in place of one labeled "genius
> design" would be better.  As it's currently being defined, it would
> probably be better renamed, "inexperienced, unskilled, untalented
> design," since that's exactly what's going to produce failure.
>
> There are plenty, PLENTY, of failures all around us.  Many
> corporations do indeed pursue research. UCD methodologies are not
> new.  What's incredibly objectionable in this polemic approach by UCD
> advocates, is that designing in any other approach is a folly, or
> "has produced many failures."  Just a few token, and relatively
> unexamined examples are held up to underscore the assertion that
> intuition or experience is a doomed or merely egotistical approach.
>
> There are many examples of failure of design that do involve
> research.  And it happens at different levels.  An otherwise even
> successful design, arrived at by any method, might still fail because
> what was really needed was a larger scale of innovation, rather than
> just a fix or refinement to an existing product, system, or service.
> So there's plenty of failure to go around.
>
> The problem is that more and more pundits are now claiming that only
> academically-approved research methods are capable of producing the
> best design results. This is merely an assertion.
>
> I'd argue very strongly, and from a long history of experience, that
> engineers kludging together products, or products, systems and
> services being feature-bloated by marketing departments is in no way
> whatsoever, "genius" or representative of skilled and experienced
> interaction designers employing expert, rapid, special forces, or
> agile approaches.  The term "genius," as used in "genius design" is
> used in a completely meaningless way.
>
> An actual expert interaction designer or architect would have a
> history of smaller lessons and successes (and failures, hopefully non-
> catastrophic ones) in their past.  There's a huge range of situations
> where such experience can produce, without great amounts of research,
> excellent results.  This is why I suggest that a legitimate and
> wholly-underdiscussed, under-represented, and often outright
> mischaracterized approach to design - one of craftsmanship and expert
> experience and judgement - is sadly and inexcusably overlooked in
> these highly judgemental views coming from the research and academic
> community, and championed by some consultants.
>
> By repeating offensive claims that designing without UCD methodolgies
> is easier, much of a different type of hard work and difficult time-
> sensitive decisions are undervalued.
>
> Again, I'm not assailing UCD.  I'm imploring UCD and other methodolgy
> advocates to be careful about how they oversimplify, mischaracterize,
> and otherwise fail a valid and important sector of the Interaction
> Design community.
>
> It's particularly interesting that claims are made that UCD arose in
> reaction to design failures.  I would say that it arose because doing
> expert design is difficult, not inherently impossible or a
> "pernicious folly."  It's interesting that in the vacuum that existed
> because many successful examples were not adequately known or
> publicized, that the organized academic and research communities set
> about spending the decade of the 1990s pretending that there never
> was much success other than through their methods, that they would
> advocate in order to "save" the discipline.
>
> There's an entire untold story out there, involving many successful
> design efforts using expert, intuitive, special forces, and agile
> approaches.
>
> In mountain climbing there are traditional methods, which involve a
> large-scale and organized assault of a major peak with multiple
> camps, armies of porters, and fixed lines.  But there are others like
> Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler, who were the first to climb all
> fourteen of the world's 8,000 meter peaks "Alpine Style," (without
> supplemental oxygen or fixed ropes).  They were not "geniuses."  They
> were skilled, fit, experienced, and practiced a different philosophy
> and approach.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner
>
> The discipline of Interaction Design is indeed a young one.  I
> personally approach it as I was trained, as an industrial designer
> and through my study of the history of architecture. There are
> thousands and thousands of projects out there that could use
> experienced and expert approaches that can't afford or don't have the
> resources or time for many approaches or methodologies most often
> discussed.  These are excellent targets for Expert Design.  Or "Agile
> Design," a term which I also like, and that I'm glad someone on this
> list offered up.
>
> I really don't care that much about labels, except when they're used
> to divide and discredit alternative approaches.
>
> Expert, Special Forces, Skunkworks, Intuitive, or Agile methods of
> design are *NOT* the enemy.
>
> They are just as valid and just as deserving of the amount of study
> and examination as other methods.  They have been smeared by a broad
> and oversimplistic brush for far too many years.
>
> Jim
>
> James Leftwich, IDSA
> Orbit Interaction
> Palo Alto, California  USA
> http://www.orbitnet.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists@...
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Oleh Kovalchuke]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

There you go...
Four design categories:

   1. informed + talented => successful UCD, successful genius
   2. informed + untalented => failed UCD
   3. misinformed + talented => failed genius
   4. misinformed + untalented => failed "genius"

--
Oleh Kovalchuke
Interaction Design is Design of Time
http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm


On 10/22/06, Oleh Kovalchuke <tangospring@...> wrote:

> On 10/22/06, James Leftwich, IDSA <jleft@...> wrote:
>
> "Perhaps two, if not more categories in place of one labeled "genius
> design" would be better.  As it's currently being defined, it would probably
> be better renamed, "inexperienced, unskilled, untalented design," since
> that's exactly what's going to produce failure."
>
>  In any design process there are at least two important parts: information
> about future use of the product, and then there is creation part. Quality
> information facilitates, but does not guarantee brilliant final creation. On
> the other hand, poor information will most probably impede creation of
> useful, good designs.
>
> "Misinformed", and occasionally "uninformed design" would be better labels
> for *failed* "genius design" to distinguish it from "UCD", reflecting the
> fact that significant part of UCD process is gathering information about the
> future use.
>
> The information can be accumulated via UCD research or via extensive
> personal ("expert") experience in the field. Creation, on the other hand, is
> driven by specific individuals.
>
> Since creation part depends on personal abilities, the value of individual
> "expert design" can be enhanced, but cannot be replaced by information
> provided by UCD research. Thus "untalented design" is always a possibility.
> However one can find "untalented" designs created either via user-centered
> or via less-obviously-user centered process.
>
> --
> Oleh Kovalchuke
> Interaction Design is Design of Time
> http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > UCD and its methodologies arose because of the failings of
> > "intuitive/expert/genius design."
> >
> >
> > I think this statement says a lot about the fallacy of
> > oversimplification behind the term, "genius design."  Not to mention
> > "intuitive," or let alone, "expert."
> >
> > If a person is truly a genius, (as opposed to the term being used in
> > a sneering, derogatory, and pejorative context), and there is a
> > methodology behind the approach (which any actual experienced expert
> > would employ), albeit one different from what UCD advocates, then it
> > wouldn't produce a field mostly consisting of failures.  I know of no
> > exahaustive, serious study of the many methods and experiences *of
> > the full range* of people using non-UCD types of approaches to
> > interaction design.  So instead, we have these assertions about a
> > overly-broad strawman category.
> >
> > Perhaps two, if not more categories in place of one labeled "genius
> > design" would be better.  As it's currently being defined, it would
> > probably be better renamed, "inexperienced, unskilled, untalented
> > design," since that's exactly what's going to produce failure.
> >
> > There are plenty, PLENTY, of failures all around us.  Many
> > corporations do indeed pursue research. UCD methodologies are not
> > new.  What's incredibly objectionable in this polemic approach by UCD
> > advocates, is that designing in any other approach is a folly, or
> > "has produced many failures."  Just a few token, and relatively
> > unexamined examples are held up to underscore the assertion that
> > intuition or experience is a doomed or merely egotistical approach.
> >
> > There are many examples of failure of design that do involve
> > research.  And it happens at different levels.  An otherwise even
> > successful design, arrived at by any method, might still fail because
> > what was really needed was a larger scale of innovation, rather than
> > just a fix or refinement to an existing product, system, or service.
> > So there's plenty of failure to go around.
> >
> > The problem is that more and more pundits are now claiming that only
> > academically-approved research methods are capable of producing the
> > best design results. This is merely an assertion.
> >
> > I'd argue very strongly, and from a long history of experience, that
> > engineers kludging together products, or products, systems and
> > services being feature-bloated by marketing departments is in no way
> > whatsoever, "genius" or representative of skilled and experienced
> > interaction designers employing expert, rapid, special forces, or
> > agile approaches.  The term "genius," as used in "genius design" is
> > used in a completely meaningless way.
> >
> > An actual expert interaction designer or architect would have a
> > history of smaller lessons and successes (and failures, hopefully non-
> > catastrophic ones) in their past.  There's a huge range of situations
> > where such experience can produce, without great amounts of research,
> > excellent results.  This is why I suggest that a legitimate and
> > wholly-underdiscussed, under-represented, and often outright
> > mischaracterized approach to design - one of craftsmanship and expert
> > experience and judgement - is sadly and inexcusably overlooked in
> > these highly judgemental views coming from the research and academic
> > community, and championed by some consultants.
> >
> > By repeating offensive claims that designing without UCD methodolgies
> > is easier, much of a different type of hard work and difficult time-
> > sensitive decisions are undervalued.
> >
> > Again, I'm not assailing UCD.  I'm imploring UCD and other methodolgy
> > advocates to be careful about how they oversimplify, mischaracterize,
> > and otherwise fail a valid and important sector of the Interaction
> > Design community.
> >
> > It's particularly interesting that claims are made that UCD arose in
> > reaction to design failures.  I would say that it arose because doing
> > expert design is difficult, not inherently impossible or a
> > "pernicious folly."  It's interesting that in the vacuum that existed
> > because many successful examples were not adequately known or
> > publicized, that the organized academic and research communities set
> > about spending the decade of the 1990s pretending that there never
> > was much success other than through their methods, that they would
> > advocate in order to "save" the discipline.
> >
> > There's an entire untold story out there, involving many successful
> > design efforts using expert, intuitive, special forces, and agile
> > approaches.
> >
> > In mountain climbing there are traditional methods, which involve a
> > large-scale and organized assault of a major peak with multiple
> > camps, armies of porters, and fixed lines.  But there are others like
> > Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler, who were the first to climb all
> > fourteen of the world's 8,000 meter peaks "Alpine Style," (without
> > supplemental oxygen or fixed ropes).  They were not "geniuses."  They
> > were skilled, fit, experienced, and practiced a different philosophy
> > and approach.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner
> >
> > The discipline of Interaction Design is indeed a young one.  I
> > personally approach it as I was trained, as an industrial designer
> > and through my study of the history of architecture. There are
> > thousands and thousands of projects out there that could use
> > experienced and expert approaches that can't afford or don't have the
> > resources or time for many approaches or methodologies most often
> > discussed.  These are excellent targets for Expert Design.  Or "Agile
> > Design," a term which I also like, and that I'm glad someone on this
> > list offered up.
> >
> > I really don't care that much about labels, except when they're used
> > to divide and discredit alternative approaches.
> >
> > Expert, Special Forces, Skunkworks, Intuitive, or Agile methods of
> > design are *NOT* the enemy.
> >
> > They are just as valid and just as deserving of the amount of study
> > and examination as other methods.  They have been smeared by a broad
> > and oversimplistic brush for far too many years.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > James Leftwich, IDSA
> > Orbit Interaction
> > Palo Alto, California  USA
> > http://www.orbitnet.com
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > Questions .................. lists@...
> > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> >
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Jim Leftwich]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

I think our only possible point of divergence here would be what  
constitutes "being informed."  Many projects and domains have well-
understood functionality, technology, and existing usage models.  An  
expert will always be constantly searching out new information,  
insights, and patterns in the field(s) in which they design, as well  
as peripheral or adjacent, and even distant fields.

Much design success can be gained by understanding patterns,  
interactional syntaxes, and being able to innovate past existing  
systems.

Experienced generalists can drop in, size up a situation, learn  
specific information in a number of rapid, ad-hoc ways, and not  
always, but often see some fairly obvious potential patterns.

Your simplistic and bivalent model of informed/misinformed just fails  
to map the complex topology of reality in the vast product develoment  
world.

But in the spirit of searching for common ground, I do agree that a  
mix is good.  My primary point is that the real world does not often  
afford the time, resources, and ability to do both *full* design and  
implementation of really complex systems *and* sometimes even a  
rudimentary research phase.

Twenty years ago, I was often working on projects that lasted a year  
or year and a half.  Over the past two decades I've witnessed the  
development cycle times decrease to two months in many cases.  We're  
talking two months of 12-14/7 schedules - just to lay out a major  
interactional architecture, flows, iterative modeling, and graphical  
resources.  Perhaps one could use those other ten hours to conduct  
research, but I think many would consider sleeping and eating to be a  
good thing as well.

This is reality in the special forces trenches out there.  Product  
startups, mobile device software development, etc..

Again, nobody is saying research is not good. But understand that  
there are many other tricks, processes, strategies, and know-how  
involved in designing when it just has to be done.

And great successes can be attained, and they're not flukes.  The  
being informed often comes from familiarity within the domain, or  
rapidly assessing what's known by a client's marketing team, or by  
quickly brainstorming amongst a number of stakeholders.

It's a mischaracterization to consider rapid or expert design to be  
conducted in a state of ignorance or being misinformed.

I'm glad that we're having this dialog.  I firmly believe that the  
vast majority of our debate stems from difficulties in terminologies  
and assumptions about what's meant by what terms and descriptions.  
But I also know that there are number of skills and approaches that  
are *never* mentioned, discussed, or taken seriously in the  
discipline as necessary and valuable alternatives for the world's  
current design needs.

Jim

James Leftwich, IDSA
Orbit Interaction
Palo Alto, California  94301
USA
http://www.orbitnet.com


On Oct 22, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Oleh Kovalchuke wrote:

> There you go...
> Four design categories:
> informed + talented => successful UCD, successful genius
> informed + untalented => failed UCD
> misinformed + talented => failed genius
> misinformed + untalented => failed "genius"
> --
> Oleh Kovalchuke
> Interaction Design is Design of Time
> http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm
>
>
> On 10/22/06, Oleh Kovalchuke <tangospring@...> wrote:
> On 10/22/06, James Leftwich, IDSA <jleft@... > wrote:
> "Perhaps two, if not more categories in place of one labeled  
> "genius design" would be better.  As it's currently being defined,  
> it would probably be better renamed, "inexperienced, unskilled,  
> untalented design," since that's exactly what's going to produce  
> failure."
> In any design process there are at least two important parts:  
> information about future use of the product, and then there is  
> creation part. Quality information facilitates, but does not  
> guarantee brilliant final creation. On the other hand, poor  
> information will most probably impede creation of useful, good  
> designs.
>
> "Misinformed", and occasionally "uninformed design" would be better  
> labels for failed "genius design" to distinguish it from "UCD",  
> reflecting the fact that significant part of UCD process is  
> gathering information about the future use.
>
> The information can be accumulated via UCD research or via  
> extensive personal ("expert") experience in the field. Creation, on  
> the other hand, is driven by specific individuals.
>
> Since creation part depends on personal abilities, the value of  
> individual "expert design" can be enhanced, but cannot be replaced  
> by information provided by UCD research. Thus "untalented design"  
> is always a possibility. However one can find "untalented" designs  
> created either via user-centered or via less-obviously-user  
> centered process.
>
> --
> Oleh Kovalchuke
> Interaction Design is Design of Time
> http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm
>
>
>
>
> > UCD and its methodologies arose because of the failings of
> "intuitive/expert/genius design."
>
>
> I think this statement says a lot about the fallacy of
> oversimplification behind the term, "genius design."  Not to mention
> "intuitive," or let alone, "expert."
>
> If a person is truly a genius, (as opposed to the term being used in
> a sneering, derogatory, and pejorative context), and there is a
> methodology behind the approach (which any actual experienced expert
> would employ), albeit one different from what UCD advocates, then it
> wouldn't produce a field mostly consisting of failures.  I know of no
> exahaustive, serious study of the many methods and experiences *of
> the full range* of people using non-UCD types of approaches to
> interaction design.  So instead, we have these assertions about a
> overly-broad strawman category.
>
> Perhaps two, if not more categories in place of one labeled "genius
> design" would be better.  As it's currently being defined, it would
> probably be better renamed, "inexperienced, unskilled, untalented
> design," since that's exactly what's going to produce failure.
>
> There are plenty, PLENTY, of failures all around us.  Many
> corporations do indeed pursue research. UCD methodologies are not
> new.  What's incredibly objectionable in this polemic approach by UCD
> advocates, is that designing in any other approach is a folly, or
> "has produced many failures."  Just a few token, and relatively
> unexamined examples are held up to underscore the assertion that
> intuition or experience is a doomed or merely egotistical approach.
>
> There are many examples of failure of design that do involve
> research.  And it happens at different levels.  An otherwise even
> successful design, arrived at by any method, might still fail because
> what was really needed was a larger scale of innovation, rather than
> just a fix or refinement to an existing product, system, or service.
> So there's plenty of failure to go around.
>
> The problem is that more and more pundits are now claiming that only
> academically-approved research methods are capable of producing the
> best design results. This is merely an assertion.
>
> I'd argue very strongly, and from a long history of experience, that
> engineers kludging together products, or products, systems and
> services being feature-bloated by marketing departments is in no way
> whatsoever, "genius" or representative of skilled and experienced
> interaction designers employing expert, rapid, special forces, or
> agile approaches.  The term "genius," as used in "genius design" is
> used in a completely meaningless way.
>
> An actual expert interaction designer or architect would have a
> history of smaller lessons and successes (and failures, hopefully non-
> catastrophic ones) in their past.  There's a huge range of situations
> where such experience can produce, without great amounts of research,
> excellent results.  This is why I suggest that a legitimate and
> wholly-underdiscussed, under-represented, and often outright
> mischaracterized approach to design - one of craftsmanship and expert
> experience and judgement - is sadly and inexcusably overlooked in
> these highly judgemental views coming from the research and academic
> community, and championed by some consultants.
>
> By repeating offensive claims that designing without UCD methodolgies
> is easier, much of a different type of hard work and difficult time-
> sensitive decisions are undervalued.
>
> Again, I'm not assailing UCD.  I'm imploring UCD and other methodolgy
> advocates to be careful about how they oversimplify, mischaracterize,
> and otherwise fail a valid and important sector of the Interaction
> Design community.
>
> It's particularly interesting that claims are made that UCD arose in
> reaction to design failures.  I would say that it arose because doing
> expert design is difficult, not inherently impossible or a
> "pernicious folly."  It's interesting that in the vacuum that existed
> because many successful examples were not adequately known or
> publicized, that the organized academic and research communities set
> about spending the decade of the 1990s pretending that there never
> was much success other than through their methods, that they would
> advocate in order to "save" the discipline.
>
> There's an entire untold story out there, involving many successful
> design efforts using expert, intuitive, special forces, and agile
> approaches.
>
> In mountain climbing there are traditional methods, which involve a
> large-scale and organized assault of a major peak with multiple
> camps, armies of porters, and fixed lines.  But there are others like
> Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler, who were the first to climb all
> fourteen of the world's 8,000 meter peaks "Alpine Style," (without
> supplemental oxygen or fixed ropes).  They were not "geniuses."  They
> were skilled, fit, experienced, and practiced a different philosophy
> and approach.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner
>
> The discipline of Interaction Design is indeed a young one.  I
> personally approach it as I was trained, as an industrial designer
> and through my study of the history of architecture. There are
> thousands and thousands of projects out there that could use
> experienced and expert approaches that can't afford or don't have the
> resources or time for many approaches or methodologies most often
> discussed.  These are excellent targets for Expert Design.  Or "Agile
> Design," a term which I also like, and that I'm glad someone on this
> list offered up.
>
> I really don't care that much about labels, except when they're used
> to divide and discredit alternative approaches.
>
> Expert, Special Forces, Skunkworks, Intuitive, or Agile methods of
> design are *NOT* the enemy.
>
> They are just as valid and just as deserving of the amount of study
> and examination as other methods.  They have been smeared by a broad
> and oversimplistic brush for far too many years.
>
> Jim
>
> James Leftwich, IDSA
> Orbit Interaction
> Palo Alto, California  USA
> http://www.orbitnet.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists@...
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Oleh Kovalchuke]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

I agree with you in essence. For instance, I think it's a
mischaracterization to to consider expert design to be *always* misinformed.
But I did find one point of divergence. Here:

"Your simplistic and bivalent model of informed/misinformed just fails to
map the complex topology of reality in the vast product develoment world."

The simplicity is not mine only – the labels are simplistic by nature.
Information is only one of many ill defined labels.

I would like to take the next logical, or, perhaps, postmodernist step and
side with Plato in saying that our consciousness is but reflection of the
vast product development world, therefore this conversation is
substantsially futile – it is bound to fail to map the complex topology of
the development reality. And yet, it was enjoyable to ponder about, while it
lasted.

--
Oleh Kovalchuke
Interaction Design is Design of Time
http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm



On 10/22/06, James Leftwich, IDSA <jleft@...> wrote:

>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> I think our only possible point of divergence here would be what
> constitutes "being informed."  Many projects and domains have well-
> understood functionality, technology, and existing usage models.  An
> expert will always be constantly searching out new information,
> insights, and patterns in the field(s) in which they design, as well
> as peripheral or adjacent, and even distant fields.
>
> Much design success can be gained by understanding patterns,
> interactional syntaxes, and being able to innovate past existing
> systems.
>
> Experienced generalists can drop in, size up a situation, learn
> specific information in a number of rapid, ad-hoc ways, and not
> always, but often see some fairly obvious potential patterns.
>
> Your simplistic and bivalent model of informed/misinformed just fails
> to map the complex topology of reality in the vast product develoment
> world.
>
> But in the spirit of searching for common ground, I do agree that a
> mix is good.  My primary point is that the real world does not often
> afford the time, resources, and ability to do both *full* design and
> implementation of really complex systems *and* sometimes even a
> rudimentary research phase.
>
> Twenty years ago, I was often working on projects that lasted a year
> or year and a half.  Over the past two decades I've witnessed the
> development cycle times decrease to two months in many cases.  We're
> talking two months of 12-14/7 schedules - just to lay out a major
> interactional architecture, flows, iterative modeling, and graphical
> resources.  Perhaps one could use those other ten hours to conduct
> research, but I think many would consider sleeping and eating to be a
> good thing as well.
>
> This is reality in the special forces trenches out there.  Product
> startups, mobile device software development, etc..
>
> Again, nobody is saying research is not good. But understand that
> there are many other tricks, processes, strategies, and know-how
> involved in designing when it just has to be done.
>
> And great successes can be attained, and they're not flukes.  The
> being informed often comes from familiarity within the domain, or
> rapidly assessing what's known by a client's marketing team, or by
> quickly brainstorming amongst a number of stakeholders.
>
> It's a mischaracterization to consider rapid or expert design to be
> conducted in a state of ignorance or being misinformed.
>
> I'm glad that we're having this dialog.  I firmly believe that the
> vast majority of our debate stems from difficulties in terminologies
> and assumptions about what's meant by what terms and descriptions.
> But I also know that there are number of skills and approaches that
> are *never* mentioned, discussed, or taken seriously in the
> discipline as necessary and valuable alternatives for the world's
> current design needs.
>
> Jim
>
> James Leftwich, IDSA
> Orbit Interaction
> Palo Alto, California  94301
> USA
> http://www.orbitnet.com
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Oleh Kovalchuke wrote:
>
> > There you go...
> > Four design categories:
> > informed + talented => successful UCD, successful genius
> > informed + untalented => failed UCD
> > misinformed + talented => failed genius
> > misinformed + untalented => failed "genius"
> > --
> > Oleh Kovalchuke
> > Interaction Design is Design of Time
> > http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/06, Oleh Kovalchuke <tangospring@...> wrote:
> > On 10/22/06, James Leftwich, IDSA <jleft@... > wrote:
> > "Perhaps two, if not more categories in place of one labeled
> > "genius design" would be better.  As it's currently being defined,
> > it would probably be better renamed, "inexperienced, unskilled,
> > untalented design," since that's exactly what's going to produce
> > failure."
> > In any design process there are at least two important parts:
> > information about future use of the product, and then there is
> > creation part. Quality information facilitates, but does not
> > guarantee brilliant final creation. On the other hand, poor
> > information will most probably impede creation of useful, good
> > designs.
> >
> > "Misinformed", and occasionally "uninformed design" would be better
> > labels for failed "genius design" to distinguish it from "UCD",
> > reflecting the fact that significant part of UCD process is
> > gathering information about the future use.
> >
> > The information can be accumulated via UCD research or via
> > extensive personal ("expert") experience in the field. Creation, on
> > the other hand, is driven by specific individuals.
> >
> > Since creation part depends on personal abilities, the value of
> > individual "expert design" can be enhanced, but cannot be replaced
> > by information provided by UCD research. Thus "untalented design"
> > is always a possibility. However one can find "untalented" designs
> > created either via user-centered or via less-obviously-user
> > centered process.
> >
> > --
> > Oleh Kovalchuke
> > Interaction Design is Design of Time
> > http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > UCD and its methodologies arose because of the failings of
> > "intuitive/expert/genius design."
> >
> >
> > I think this statement says a lot about the fallacy of
> > oversimplification behind the term, "genius design."  Not to mention
> > "intuitive," or let alone, "expert."
> >
> > If a person is truly a genius, (as opposed to the term being used in
> > a sneering, derogatory, and pejorative context), and there is a
> > methodology behind the approach (which any actual experienced expert
> > would employ), albeit one different from what UCD advocates, then it
> > wouldn't produce a field mostly consisting of failures.  I know of no
> > exahaustive, serious study of the many methods and experiences *of
> > the full range* of people using non-UCD types of approaches to
> > interaction design.  So instead, we have these assertions about a
> > overly-broad strawman category.
> >
> > Perhaps two, if not more categories in place of one labeled "genius
> > design" would be better.  As it's currently being defined, it would
> > probably be better renamed, "inexperienced, unskilled, untalented
> > design," since that's exactly what's going to produce failure.
> >
> > There are plenty, PLENTY, of failures all around us.  Many
> > corporations do indeed pursue research. UCD methodologies are not
> > new.  What's incredibly objectionable in this polemic approach by UCD
> > advocates, is that designing in any other approach is a folly, or
> > "has produced many failures."  Just a few token, and relatively
> > unexamined examples are held up to underscore the assertion that
> > intuition or experience is a doomed or merely egotistical approach.
> >
> > There are many examples of failure of design that do involve
> > research.  And it happens at different levels.  An otherwise even
> > successful design, arrived at by any method, might still fail because
> > what was really needed was a larger scale of innovation, rather than
> > just a fix or refinement to an existing product, system, or service.
> > So there's plenty of failure to go around.
> >
> > The problem is that more and more pundits are now claiming that only
> > academically-approved research methods are capable of producing the
> > best design results. This is merely an assertion.
> >
> > I'd argue very strongly, and from a long history of experience, that
> > engineers kludging together products, or products, systems and
> > services being feature-bloated by marketing departments is in no way
> > whatsoever, "genius" or representative of skilled and experienced
> > interaction designers employing expert, rapid, special forces, or
> > agile approaches.  The term "genius," as used in "genius design" is
> > used in a completely meaningless way.
> >
> > An actual expert interaction designer or architect would have a
> > history of smaller lessons and successes (and failures, hopefully non-
> > catastrophic ones) in their past.  There's a huge range of situations
> > where such experience can produce, without great amounts of research,
> > excellent results.  This is why I suggest that a legitimate and
> > wholly-underdiscussed, under-represented, and often outright
> > mischaracterized approach to design - one of craftsmanship and expert
> > experience and judgement - is sadly and inexcusably overlooked in
> > these highly judgemental views coming from the research and academic
> > community, and championed by some consultants.
> >
> > By repeating offensive claims that designing without UCD methodolgies
> > is easier, much of a different type of hard work and difficult time-
> > sensitive decisions are undervalued.
> >
> > Again, I'm not assailing UCD.  I'm imploring UCD and other methodolgy
> > advocates to be careful about how they oversimplify, mischaracterize,
> > and otherwise fail a valid and important sector of the Interaction
> > Design community.
> >
> > It's particularly interesting that claims are made that UCD arose in
> > reaction to design failures.  I would say that it arose because doing
> > expert design is difficult, not inherently impossible or a
> > "pernicious folly."  It's interesting that in the vacuum that existed
> > because many successful examples were not adequately known or
> > publicized, that the organized academic and research communities set
> > about spending the decade of the 1990s pretending that there never
> > was much success other than through their methods, that they would
> > advocate in order to "save" the discipline.
> >
> > There's an entire untold story out there, involving many successful
> > design efforts using expert, intuitive, special forces, and agile
> > approaches.
> >
> > In mountain climbing there are traditional methods, which involve a
> > large-scale and organized assault of a major peak with multiple
> > camps, armies of porters, and fixed lines.  But there are others like
> > Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler, who were the first to climb all
> > fourteen of the world's 8,000 meter peaks "Alpine Style," (without
> > supplemental oxygen or fixed ropes).  They were not "geniuses."  They
> > were skilled, fit, experienced, and practiced a different philosophy
> > and approach.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner
> >
> > The discipline of Interaction Design is indeed a young one.  I
> > personally approach it as I was trained, as an industrial designer
> > and through my study of the history of architecture. There are
> > thousands and thousands of projects out there that could use
> > experienced and expert approaches that can't afford or don't have the
> > resources or time for many approaches or methodologies most often
> > discussed.  These are excellent targets for Expert Design.  Or "Agile
> > Design," a term which I also like, and that I'm glad someone on this
> > list offered up.
> >
> > I really don't care that much about labels, except when they're used
> > to divide and discredit alternative approaches.
> >
> > Expert, Special Forces, Skunkworks, Intuitive, or Agile methods of
> > design are *NOT* the enemy.
> >
> > They are just as valid and just as deserving of the amount of study
> > and examination as other methods.  They have been smeared by a broad
> > and oversimplistic brush for far too many years.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > James Leftwich, IDSA
> > Orbit Interaction
> > Palo Alto, California  USA
> > http://www.orbitnet.com
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> > List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> > List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> > (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> > Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> > Questions .................. lists@...
> > Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> > Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists@...
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Jim Leftwich]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

Well, I agree that discussions *alone* are, ultimately, futile when  
it comes to design and architecture.  And yet we've been constantly  
subjected to theories, methodologies, and pronouncements about what  
constitutes "best practices" and what constitutes "pernicious  
follies," and these assertions themselves are often just more words.  
Without the work and results to back them up.

I, and a lot of other designers and architects think the bottom line  
has *always* been the work, where the rubber actually meets the  
road.  I believe rather than express opinions and theories as  
researchers and academics are wont to do, designers and architects  
show their work and discuss their approaches, successes, failures,  
and strategies within the contexts of, well, *actual work.*

The problem, however, is that the vast majority of actual work out  
there has not been adequately reviewed and studied for alternative  
methods, insights, and overlooked strategies.  Because the academics  
and researchers as far back as the late 1980s were already declaring  
alternative methods verboten.  In other words, they declared  
alternative methods unacceptable without having even done proper,  
rigorous study of them.

And this is *especially* true in the product and device world, as  
much of the most successful design in that field has been done by  
methods other than UCD.  It's been done by experienced designers that  
recognize the power of experience-based intuition and judgement.

I come from the field of industrial design, and from a very  
generalist European/Bauhaus type of approach, which as Scott points  
out, is very different from the American "everybody's a specialist"  
approach.  It's interesting that when I collaborate with European  
designers, I almost always feel like I'm working with long-lost  
relatives.

When  all is said and done the only thing that's really going to  
matter is how many products, systems, and services were designed.  
How successful those designs were.  How much those designs and  
implementations cost per return.  And how far forward was design (not  
theory or methodology) pushed forward.

People in this discipline should spend more time studying actual real-
world design outcomes and real-world development environments and  
realities.  For the past two decades there's been a huge disconnect  
between what's constituted success in real-world design and the  
*prevailing academic/researcher-dominated discourse."

More rubber on the road.  Less pie in the sky.

It's ultimately *not* a futile conversation at all.

Jim

James Leftwich, IDSA
Orbit Interaction
Palo Alto, California  94301
USA
http://www.orbitnet.com



On Oct 22, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Oleh Kovalchuke wrote:

> I agree with you in essence. For instance, I think it's a  
> mischaracterization to to consider expert design to be always  
> misinformed. But I did find one point of divergence. Here:
> "Your simplistic and bivalent model of informed/misinformed just  
> fails to map the complex topology of reality in the vast product  
> develoment world."
> The simplicity is not mine only – the labels are simplistic by  
> nature. Information is only one of many ill defined labels.
>
> I would like to take the next logical, or, perhaps, postmodernist  
> step and side with Plato in saying that our consciousness is but  
> reflection of the vast product development world, therefore this  
> conversation is substantsially futile – it is bound to fail to map  
> the complex topology of the development reality. And yet, it was  
> enjoyable to ponder about, while it lasted.
>
> --
> Oleh Kovalchuke
> Interaction Design is Design of Time
> http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Antonella Pavese-2]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]

On Oct 22, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Oleh Kovalchuke wrote:

> There you go...
> Four design categories:
> informed + talented => successful UCD, successful genius
> informed + untalented => failed UCD
> misinformed + talented => failed genius

I know that debates like this are really useful and create seeds for
more complex theories on effective design. I'm a little bit concerned
though that we may get caught up in surgical distinctions that are
difficult to find in the field.

In the dusty and messy reality of projects and design practice, all
these beautiful and logical categories start to lose meaning. What is
UCD? What is genius? How many people and entities influence design
outside of the data and the designers? How does the culture of the
company influences good and bad decisions?

In my experience people get what they can when working on a project.
Among the information that influence design solutions: business
requirements, the decision-making culture of the company (consensus or
executive decision), formal and informal (more frequently informal)
bits of information about how people relate to the design, which may
be collected in lab, fields, hallways, and kitchen tables late at
night (yes, sometimes people bring their work home).

I've also noticed that some practitioners are much better than other
in connecting all these pieces of information to design solutions, and
perhaps this is part of the genius (without quotes) or design talent:
I've seen people getting the tiniest bit of observation of people
using the design, understanding immediately what needed to be
modified, and finding an effective solution. Then I've seen people
that seem to be clueless of what the problem is and what possible
solutions should be tried even after formal usability evaluations.
Most people tend to cluster in  middle: they need a certain amount of
data and observations, and they need to make a certain number of
attempts to find the most effective solution.

So I like the two-dimensional structure that Oleh proposed, although I
would substituite UCD with data and observations coming from formal
and informal user study.
What is missing in this picture is the organizational and corporate
culture in which design projects happen, which sometimes has an even
greater influence on the final outcome than the talent of the designer
or whether user studies are carried out or not.

Antonella Pavese
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

[Christina Wodtke]

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]



Oleh Kovalchuke wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> There you go...
> Four design categories:
>
>    1. informed + talented => successful UCD, successful genius
>    2. informed + untalented => failed UCD
>    3. misinformed + talented => failed genius
>    4. misinformed + untalented => failed "genius"
>  

If only it were so simple. Informed and talented can be ahead of his/her
time, can be bad at selling the idea up, can be good at selling the idea
up, but the company can't handle it.
Meanwhile, misinformed and untalented might be executing an idea that is
so compelling design can't get in its way.

We are not as important as we think we are. We can be, but we are only
part of the big picture.

--
Christina Wodtke
Principal Instigator

Magazine :: http://www.boxesandarrows.com
Business :: http://www.publicsquarehq.com
Personal :: http://www.eleganthack.com
Book :: http://www.blueprintsfortheweb.com

cwodtke@...

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists@...
Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org