Recent Discussions

30 Oct 2003 - 3:40am
0
11 years ago
2 replies
livlab
2003

RE: Prototypes, process, and ID (RE:[interactionarchitects] Re: process ... the nextgeneration)

: "Data indicate that 60-80% of the cost of software
: development is rework--that is, fixing defects that
: are found during testing.* While software must still
: be tested, testing and rework costs would be reduced
: if better design and implementation practices were used"

Fixing defects that are found during testing... if there really was testing
then it's already a significant and important design practice. As John said,
the software industry is used to testing, it's part of the process.

30 Oct 2003 - 3:26am
0
11 years ago
2 replies
John O'Donovan
2004

RE: Prototypes, process, and ID (RE:[interactionarchitects] Re: process ... the next generation)

Peter Bagnall said:
> I think part of our problem is that in software
> the manufacturing cost is practically nothing (CD's
> or net distro are cheap.), so any more time spent
> in design feels to management like a direct increase
> in cost, and therefore a loss of profitability.

I'm not sure I know the context in which you are describing manufacturing
here Peter, because the cost of manufacturing software also includes an
equivalent "tooling" up period which is development, testing and everything
else related to building application

29 Oct 2003 - 3:55pm
0
Dave Malouf
2005

Techtionary

http://techtionary.com/members/index_in.html
Username: Guest
Password: Guestiq

case counts
Only good till 11/2

-- dave

29 Oct 2003 - 5:27am
0
Marike Maring
2003

FW: [interactionarchitects] Re: process ... the next generation

The developers I encountered so far love to trow prototypes away but
refactoring is generally seen as a waste of time by the management - if it
seems sellable, it's good enough. Time constraints. 20-80 percent rule,
blahblah. In the company I work for now, we made the management sign an
agreement with the projectteam to allow us to trow away the entire pilot
version of the product we're working on.

Marike

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Todd R.

29 Oct 2003 - 12:44am
0
CD Evans
2004

Quality under pressure was: RE: Prototypes, process, and ID

I like the idea of an award system but that might lead us into a
whole other kettle of exclusivity problems. What has worked well in
the past has been 'site of the day' awards or perhaps a review site?
Boxes and Arrows is my first guess for setting up reviews, but I
don't see why we couldn't do it on our site.

How does that sound?

28 Oct 2003 - 3:48pm
0
11 years ago
1 reply
Josh Seiden
2003

Qualitative Research Consultants Organization

Does anyone on this list know anything about this
group?

http://www.qrca.org

I just came across them yesterday. I do a fair amount
of qualitative research, as, I imagine, do many of you.
This organization seems more focused on a traditional
vision of market research.

28 Oct 2003 - 12:12pm
0
11 years ago
6 replies
Dave Malouf
2005

Prototypes as documentation?

Are others finding themselves in the quandry that was expressed in a recent
article on B&A about how wireframes have become the final source of
documentation for design, engineering, and quality assurance?

Here's the link:
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/the_devils_in_the_wireframes.php

I know I am facing this problem.

How are people dealing w/ this? What do people think of Liz's solution?

-- dave

28 Oct 2003 - 12:04pm
0
11 years ago
3 replies
Peter Bagnall
2003

Quality under pressure was: RE: Prototypes, process, and ID

On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 14:25 Europe/London, Ron Vutpakdi wrote:
> I would agree that to produce something really good takes time and
> effort.
> Now, at the same time, is it better to adapt ourselves to the
> conditions in
> which we find ourselves or is it better to draw a line in the sand and
> risk
> being shunted completely aside?

I think there is a line to be drawn, yes. I wouldn't be extreme about
where it was drawn, but I wouldn't want to be associated with something
that was a design disaster.

28 Oct 2003 - 10:54am
0
Josh Seiden
2003

RE: Prototypes, process, and ID (RE: [interactionarchitects] Re: process ... the nextgeneration)

Peter Bagnall wrote:

> > There seems to be an acceptance by people that
short time scales are
> > inevitable. I'd like to push back against that.

[snip]

> > One of the roles for a professional group, in my
opinion,
> > is to advocate better design practice to the other
> > professions we interact with.

28 Oct 2003 - 8:25am
0
11 years ago
2 replies
vutpakdi
2003

RE: Prototypes, process, and ID (RE: [interactionarchitects] Re: process ... the next generation)

--- Peter Bagnall <pete at surfaceeffect.com> wrote:
>[...]
> There seems to be an acceptance by people that short time scales are
> inevitable. I'd like to push back against that. To produce something
> really
> good does take time and effort. If we accept ever shorter timescales
> then,
> as a profession, we're selling out.

Syndicate content Get the feed