Re: Expert/Rapid/Special Forces Design

[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