« Return to Thread: Expert/Rapid/Special Forces Design (was: Yet Another iPod Birth Story)
Re: Expert/Rapid/Special Forces Design (was: Yet Another iPod Birth Story)
by Dan Saffer
::
Rate this Message:
[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
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
« Return to Thread: Expert/Rapid/Special Forces Design (was: Yet Another iPod Birth Story)
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
