UCD a process?

17 Aug 2007 - 12:28pm
7 years ago
32 replies
838 reads
Vishal Subraman...
2005

I was at Leisa Reicheit's talk at the Adaptive Path conference
(http://tinyurl.com/28mfmh) and she spoke of User Centered Design as a
process. This is not the first time I've heard it and I'm puzzled
because I've always thought of it as a Design philosophy. Am I missing
something here?

--
-Vishal
http://www.vishaliyer.com

Comments

17 Aug 2007 - 3:49pm
Sidharthan, Raj
2007

It shocks me when people say that they are moving away from UCD process
to Agile process, when UCD was never a process.

I am not sure why 'Design' has to be called 'User Centric' to begin
with. Being user centric is he only way to design.

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Vishal Iyer
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:29 AM
To: ixd-discussion Mailinglist
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] UCD a process?

I was at Leisa Reicheit's talk at the Adaptive Path conference
(http://tinyurl.com/28mfmh) and she spoke of User Centered Design as a
process. This is not the first time I've heard it and I'm puzzled
because I've always thought of it as a Design philosophy. Am I missing
something here?

--
-Vishal
http://www.vishaliyer.com
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org List Guidelines
............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines List Help
.................. http://beta.ixda.org/help Unsubscribe
................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe Questions
.................. list at ixda.org Home .......................
http://beta.ixda.org

17 Aug 2007 - 3:53pm
Kevin Silver1
2006

To quote myself:

"To be clear, process is the overarching design framework—for
example, an iterative, or spiral, process or a sequential, or
waterfall, process. Conversely, a methodology is a prescribed design
approach such as user-centered design or genius design."

I don't UCD is a process per se, but I can understand the sentiment,
since UCD is typically implemented as a waterfall or sequential
process, it becomes branded as such.

Kevin

On Aug 17, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Vishal Iyer wrote:

> I was at Leisa Reicheit's talk at the Adaptive Path conference
> (http://tinyurl.com/28mfmh) and she spoke of User Centered Design as a
> process. This is not the first time I've heard it and I'm puzzled
> because I've always thought of it as a Design philosophy. Am I missing
> something here?
>
> --
> -Vishal
> http://www.vishaliyer.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

Kevin Silver
Clearwired Web Services

10899 Montgomery, Suite C
Albuquerque, NM 87109

office: 505.217.3505
toll-free: 866.430.2832
fax: 505.217.3506

e: kevin at clearwired.com
w: www.clearwired.com

17 Aug 2007 - 4:08pm
Joseph Selbie
2007

I would agree in the main that UCD is an approach -- but it certainly
suggests process, i.e. starting with users, iterating with users through
development and ending with users in testing.

Joseph Selbie
Founder, CEO Tristream
http://www.tristream.com

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Silver
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 1:54 PM
To: Vishal Iyer
Cc: ixd-discussion Mailinglist
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] UCD a process?

To quote myself:

"To be clear, process is the overarching design framework-for
example, an iterative, or spiral, process or a sequential, or
waterfall, process. Conversely, a methodology is a prescribed design
approach such as user-centered design or genius design."

I don't UCD is a process per se, but I can understand the sentiment,
since UCD is typically implemented as a waterfall or sequential
process, it becomes branded as such.

Kevin

On Aug 17, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Vishal Iyer wrote:

> I was at Leisa Reicheit's talk at the Adaptive Path conference
> (http://tinyurl.com/28mfmh) and she spoke of User Centered Design as a
> process. This is not the first time I've heard it and I'm puzzled
> because I've always thought of it as a Design philosophy. Am I missing
> something here?
>
> --
> -Vishal
> http://www.vishaliyer.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

Kevin Silver
Clearwired Web Services

10899 Montgomery, Suite C
Albuquerque, NM 87109

office: 505.217.3505
toll-free: 866.430.2832
fax: 505.217.3506

e: kevin at clearwired.com
w: www.clearwired.com

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

17 Aug 2007 - 4:01pm
Leisa Reichelt
2006

hrm... I should probably let more people reply before jumping in, but can't
help myself :)

just to clarify -

a) I think that UCD is both a design philosophy and a process... I think
that the process comes from the philosophy, that is that if you follow the
philosophy then a certain process emerges that involves getting real user
insight in order to commence designing and throughout design iterations. I'd
agree that it's *not* a definitive process that everyone agrees to, but
there are certain methods involved and a general order that we'd tend to
apply them. This is, perhaps, in reaction to the many times I've heard
people/companies claim to be user centred because they 'think' about the
user. Does that make any sense?

b) at no time have I advocated moving away from UCD to Agile. The point I'm
trying to make is that I think there can be great benefits if we can come up
with a way to retool Agile processes so that they enable the inclusion of
UCD methods, more design and more user insight.

would love to hear more thoughts on this :)
________________________
Leisa Reichelt
Disambiguity.com
Contextual Research, User Centred Design & Social Design

leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
+44 778 071 2129

17 Aug 2007 - 4:19pm
R Brown
2007

UCD is a philosophy

However IBM has developed a very defined process for UCD

http://www-03.ibm.com/easy/page/2

More info also at UPA

http://www.upassoc.org/usability_resources/about_usability/what_is_ucd.html

On 8/17/07 1:53 PM, "Kevin Silver" <kevin at clearwired.com> wrote:

> To quote myself:
>
> "To be clear, process is the overarching design framework‹for
> example, an iterative, or spiral, process or a sequential, or
> waterfall, process. Conversely, a methodology is a prescribed design
> approach such as user-centered design or genius design."
>
> I don't UCD is a process per se, but I can understand the sentiment,
> since UCD is typically implemented as a waterfall or sequential
> process, it becomes branded as such.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Vishal Iyer wrote:
>
>> I was at Leisa Reicheit's talk at the Adaptive Path conference
>> (http://tinyurl.com/28mfmh) and she spoke of User Centered Design as a
>> process. This is not the first time I've heard it and I'm puzzled
>> because I've always thought of it as a Design philosophy. Am I missing
>> something here?
>>
>> --
>> -Vishal
>> http://www.vishaliyer.com
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
>> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>
> Kevin Silver
> Clearwired Web Services
>
> 10899 Montgomery, Suite C
> Albuquerque, NM 87109
>
> office: 505.217.3505
> toll-free: 866.430.2832
> fax: 505.217.3506
>
> e: kevin at clearwired.com
> w: www.clearwired.com
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

--
Rob Brown
Sr. Information Architect
Web Design & Technology
Adobe Systems Incorporated
P. 415.832.5245
C. 510.207.7835
E. robbrown at adobe.com

17 Aug 2007 - 4:28pm
Robert Hoekman, Jr.
2005

This conversation is already giving me a headache.

When I read the first post in this thread, I thought, "Of course it's a
process - how could it be anything else?" Then I read the post about the AP
talk and thought, "Oh, I get it. Yeah, I would never compare it to Agile or
Waterfall. It's not a process in the same way *those* things are processes."

UCD, really, is a set of deliverables and mindsets and approaches. It's a
lot of things that are intangible, and a few that are tangible. But this
thought process bugs me so I refuse to keep following it.

Some rhetorical questions for you to ponder.

1) First, why does this matter? In the end, who really cares if it's a
process or a methodology? These semantic debates get really tiring. As
interaction designers, we would advocate designs that are clear and concise
and easy to understand, but apparently we can't apply this same logic to
"designing" an outside view our own profession, and thus, continue having
these conversations over and over again.

2) Why is it that after all this time, people struggle so hard to define
what we do for a living?

3) Why don't we recognize that our complete and total failure to come up
with a simple and clear definition of our profession(s) is one of the
primary reasons no one understands what we do (and therefore can think it
valueless)? Is it really like being an "artist"? We can label it but we
can't define it?

It's absurd. Really, really absurd.

-r-

17 Aug 2007 - 4:43pm
Vishal Subraman...
2005

> I am not sure why 'Design' has to be called 'User Centric' to begin
> with. Being user centric is he only way to design.

Being user centric is the only way 'we' know to design. The user centered
design movement has only evolved over the last 30 years or so. I'm no
authority on this topic, would be great if someone can plug in. (links to
resources on Design philosophies would be great too)

I'm no good at semantics either but here goes Leisa...I think methodologies
& tools comes from a philosophy, not processes- at least, not in the way
Waterfall, Agile etc are processes. The process should be philosophy
agnostic and vice versa. I do agree that they are not mutually exclusive,
especially with regards to implementation. I agree with the 'coming up with
a way to retool Agile processes so that they enable the inclusion of UCD
methods', but not with the comparison of Agile and UCD.

--
-Vishal
http://www.vishaliyer.com

On 8/17/07, Leisa Reichelt <leisa.reichelt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> hrm... I should probably let more people reply before jumping in, but
> can't help myself :)
>
> just to clarify -
>
> a) I think that UCD is both a design philosophy and a process... I think
> that the process comes from the philosophy, that is that if you follow the
> philosophy then a certain process emerges that involves getting real user
> insight in order to commence designing and throughout design iterations. I'd
> agree that it's *not* a definitive process that everyone agrees to, but
> there are certain methods involved and a general order that we'd tend to
> apply them. This is, perhaps, in reaction to the many times I've heard
> people/companies claim to be user centred because they 'think' about the
> user. Does that make any sense?
>
> b) at no time have I advocated moving away from UCD to Agile. The point
> I'm trying to make is that I think there can be great benefits if we can
> come up with a way to retool Agile processes so that they enable the
> inclusion of UCD methods, more design and more user insight.
>
> would love to hear more thoughts on this :)
> ________________________
> Leisa Reichelt
> Disambiguity.com
> Contextual Research, User Centred Design & Social Design
>
> leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
> +44 778 071 2129

17 Aug 2007 - 4:57pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Aug 17, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Sidharthan, Raj wrote:

> I am not sure why 'Design' has to be called 'User Centric' to begin
> with. Being user centric is he only way to design.

While I agree, I still think even that distinction is too limiting.
Being holistic is the only way to design. That to me means
understanding people, understanding business, understanding
environmental impact, understanding the technology itself,
understanding brand, the list goes on and on. As a designer, you
really have to get your head wrapped around as much of it as you
possibly can if you want any hope of creating good products.

In my experience, the people who often feel the need to append the
word "design" with the "user centered" tag were often people who were
not trained as designers themselves. Sure, designers can be appear to
be egomaniacs and appear to not care what people think but that's
just not true when you really get to the heart of it. Designers care
deeply about what they are creating and what people think about their
work, which is directly related to how useful people find their design.

So can we drop the pretense that we need to be told to remember the
user by having a philosophy or even a process named after something
that is already obvious?

And while its true the past used to have engineers do a majority of
the design work more often than not -- probably how the term UCD
originated in the first place -- the field has evolved and changed
enough that we should drop that legacy sort of thinking or keep it
alive by naming ill-defined processes after it.

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422

17 Aug 2007 - 5:11pm
Christopher Fahey
2005

Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
> And while its true the past used to have engineers do a
> majority of the design work more often than not -- probably
> how the term UCD originated in the first place -- the field
> has evolved and changed enough that we should drop that
> legacy sort of thinking or keep it alive by naming
> ill-defined processes after it.

Agile is fundamentally *not* user-centered, at least not yet. No Agile
text I have ever read has treated the user experience as anything more
than a sinlge page, or even much more than a footnote.

In Agile, the UI is still an afterthought, a skin to decorate something
that was built from the ground up by engineers. The idea that the user
experience is the "center" of the process is still something that needs
to be evangelized quite a bit.

-Cf

Christopher Fahey
____________________________
Behavior
http://www.behaviordesign.com
212.532.4002 x203
646.338.4002 mobile

17 Aug 2007 - 5:07pm
Christopher Fahey
2005

Raj Sidharthan wrote:
> It shocks me when people say that they are moving away from
> UCD process to Agile process, when UCD was never a process.

Kevin Silver wrote:
> "To be clear, process is the overarching design framework-for
> example, an iterative, or spiral, process or a sequential, or
> waterfall, process. Conversely, a methodology is a prescribed
> design approach such as user-centered design or genius design."

So let me get this straight: It's a "process" based on the high-level
abstract nature of the flow of the project, but it's a "methodology"
when that process proscribes certain deliverables and exercises?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. Honestly, this seems like idle
pedantry. For most regular people, a methodology and a process are
completely the same thing. The words are 100% interchangeable. They are
synonyms. The above definitions seem completely arbitrary to me. And
really I don't see any practical need for us to make distinctions of
this sort.

It reminds me of the perpetual argument between "customization" and
"personalization". I've been lectured a million times on the
distinction, and every time the difference is the opposite of the
previous time. These are regular English words that are for all
practical purposes completely synonymous.

We're supposed to be usability specialists here, folks, with some
appreciation for how people might really understand potentially esoteric
concepts. Since we obviously can't use words like "process" and
"methodology" in a way that everyone understands, it's up to us to
either accept that they are the same thing, or to explain what we mean
with more words or different words -- not to correct people for not
conforming to arbitrary and narrow jargony definitions.

-Cf

Christopher Fahey
____________________________
Behavior
http://www.behaviordesign.com
212.532.4002 x203
646.338.4002 mobile

17 Aug 2007 - 4:07pm
Kevin Silver1
2006

exactly...

On Aug 17, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Joseph Selbie wrote:

> I would agree in the main that UCD is an approach -- but it certainly
> suggests process, i.e. starting with users, iterating with users
> through
> development and ending with users in testing.
>
> Joseph Selbie
> Founder, CEO Tristream
> http://www.tristream.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf
> Of Kevin
> Silver
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 1:54 PM
> To: Vishal Iyer
> Cc: ixd-discussion Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] UCD a process?
>
> To quote myself:
>
> "To be clear, process is the overarching design framework-for
> example, an iterative, or spiral, process or a sequential, or
> waterfall, process. Conversely, a methodology is a prescribed design
> approach such as user-centered design or genius design."
>
> I don't UCD is a process per se, but I can understand the sentiment,
> since UCD is typically implemented as a waterfall or sequential
> process, it becomes branded as such.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> On Aug 17, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Vishal Iyer wrote:
>
>> I was at Leisa Reicheit's talk at the Adaptive Path conference
>> (http://tinyurl.com/28mfmh) and she spoke of User Centered Design
>> as a
>> process. This is not the first time I've heard it and I'm puzzled
>> because I've always thought of it as a Design philosophy. Am I
>> missing
>> something here?
>>
>> --
>> -Vishal
>> http://www.vishaliyer.com
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
>> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>
> Kevin Silver
> Clearwired Web Services
>
> 10899 Montgomery, Suite C
> Albuquerque, NM 87109
>
> office: 505.217.3505
> toll-free: 866.430.2832
> fax: 505.217.3506
>
> e: kevin at clearwired.com
> w: www.clearwired.com
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

Kevin Silver
Clearwired Web Services

10899 Montgomery, Suite C
Albuquerque, NM 87109

office: 505.217.3505
toll-free: 866.430.2832
fax: 505.217.3506

e: kevin at clearwired.com
w: www.clearwired.com

17 Aug 2007 - 5:12pm
Leisa Reichelt
2006

first up, I'll say that when choosing the term 'process' I didn't even
consider the difference between methodology and process.... it's a
difference that doesn't really have much meaning for me. In practice, they
both really mean 'how we do things around here'... (although many on this
list will find that informality infuriating... it's how it works for me). I
agree that there is a significant difference in the relative formalisation
of Agile as compared to UCD, but what I was attempting to do was to look at
two 'ways we do things' and pull out some aspects of each that I thought
were interesting and worthy of further exploration/attention and perhaps
combination.

>So can we drop the pretense that we need to be told to remember the
>user by having a philosophy or even a process named after something
>that is already obvious?

See... my problem with this is that UCD is not about 'remembering the user'
- it's about actual end user involvement.
To me, this is a part of the problem. I believe a lot of people *think*
they're doing User Centred Design when, in actual fact, they're not really
at all... just *thinking* of the user isn't UCD if you've never met them...
at least, not as I interpret it.

If all (or even most) designers were *actually* practicing UCD, if this was
the status quo, then the world would be a somewhat different place, I'd
wager.

________________________
Leisa Reichelt
Disambiguity.com
Contextual Research, User Centred Design & Social Design

leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
+44 778 071 2129

17 Aug 2007 - 5:17pm
Christopher Fahey
2005

Leisa Reichelt wrote:
> b) at no time have I advocated moving away from UCD to Agile.
> The point I'm trying to make is that I think there can be
> great benefits if we can come up with a way to retool Agile
> processes so that they enable the inclusion of UCD methods,
> more design and more user insight.

An Agile specialist told me recently that one of the reasons that
designers have a hard time understanding Agile is that, well, designers
already work that way. They think that Agile is more complex than it
really is, whereas in fact a lot of Agile's philosophy is what designers
already do.

In practice, designers rarely, for example, actually work in a Waterfall
process where envisioning the end product is forbidden in the early
stages and where big design decisions can never be backed away from.
Creative people are often fully prepared to rethink fundamental ideas
right up to the final stages of a project, and (as I've argued many
times recently) they are always imagining the final result every step of
the way, even from Day 1.

My colleague basically said that Agile is designed to help programmers
learn how to think like designers, since the challenges they face are
just as unpredictable.

Agile's key strength is very simple: The recognition of the
impossibility of predicting how difficult it will be to program any
given feature. This kind of uncertainty is fully accepted in most design
processes -- we have no idea how long it will take to design the perfect
corporate logo, or to design the perfect way to display a full month of
a TV Schedule in a single browser window. But computer programmers are
still often asked to predict how long it will take to solve a problem
that has never been touched before.

Agile's weakness, however, is that it still does not subscribe to the
idea that a product's UX and the UI are the most important parts of an
application (37 Signals' idea that "the interface is the functional
spec" http://tinyurl.com/6r2nj).

Agile still has engineers building the UI, or has them "applying" the UI
at the end, instead of making the user's fundamental, hands-on
experience of the product the target that they are all aiming for. This
is what has to be changed.

The magic formula for a viable Agile+UCD process is one where the
programmers are given the freedom to change how and what they are
working on, but where they are still given a specific target to aim for:
Complete user experience design specifications produced by a specialized
UCD team. These specifications will have been tested with users in
prototype form, validated for meeting business needs, etc. These do not
need to be 300 page functional spec docs, but they do need to be very
detailed specifications of how the UI looks and behaves. In short, it's
the kind of documentation most IAs already make: flowcharts and
wireframes. Maybe also throw in a visual design spec, or even a full
deck of designed page comps. The Agile coding team would then work with
the business owner, the IA, and the visual designers (this group
becomes, in Agile parlance, "the customer") to ensure that their work
meets all business and UX objectives.

-Cf

Christopher Fahey
____________________________
Behavior
http://www.behaviordesign.com
me: http://www.graphpaper.com

17 Aug 2007 - 5:19pm
bminihan
2007

I agree that it's largely a semantic debate - does it really matter whether
it's a process, methodology, approach, philosophy...do you do it? Great.

I think of UCD as a collection of tools that denotes a way of incorporating
something into a project that might not be considered in the very strict "I
have an idea, I wrote a program, I launched it" perspective. In the same
way, building an "enterprise-ready web application" is different from
building a web site, in that you think about the project in a different way,
apply different tools for measuring its performance, and "think about the
process" differently than you would otherwise do. This is a very important
distinction in our offshore development efforts, btw. The term "user
centered" is a handy catch-all term to define the purpose of the tools you
use.

So...the UCD toolset/mindset/method/approach/philosophy can be applied to an
Agile or Waterfall methodology, and should.

- Bryan
http://www.bryanminihan.com

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Christopher Fahey
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 6:12 PM
To: ixd-discussion Mailinglist
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] UCD a process?

Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
> And while its true the past used to have engineers do a
> majority of the design work more often than not -- probably
> how the term UCD originated in the first place -- the field
> has evolved and changed enough that we should drop that
> legacy sort of thinking or keep it alive by naming
> ill-defined processes after it.

Agile is fundamentally *not* user-centered, at least not yet. No Agile
text I have ever read has treated the user experience as anything more
than a sinlge page, or even much more than a footnote.

In Agile, the UI is still an afterthought, a skin to decorate something
that was built from the ground up by engineers. The idea that the user
experience is the "center" of the process is still something that needs
to be evangelized quite a bit.

-Cf

Christopher Fahey
____________________________
Behavior
http://www.behaviordesign.com
212.532.4002 x203
646.338.4002 mobile
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

17 Aug 2007 - 5:39pm
Joseph Selbie
2007

I have been brought in to scores of companies to do IX design and I have yet
to meet a development team that really practices user centered design --
it's all lip service. (After all, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who
would say, "Oh we don't believe in user centered design." :)

In fairness to the development teams however, it is almost always the
business/budget side of the equation that prevents them from
learning/applying it. Time and resources are simply not made available to
truly involve users -- or even research them properly. Most teams I have
dealt with would love to do it but plead budget and deadline thinking on the
part of their stakeholders. (Which, by the way, seems to be one of the
primary drivers of Agile.)

Joseph Selbie
Founder, CEO Tristream
http://www.tristream.com

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Leisa
Reichelt
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:12 PM
To: Andrei Herasimchuk
Cc: ixd-discussion Mailinglist
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] UCD a process?

first up, I'll say that when choosing the term 'process' I didn't even
consider the difference between methodology and process.... it's a
difference that doesn't really have much meaning for me. In practice, they
both really mean 'how we do things around here'... (although many on this
list will find that informality infuriating... it's how it works for me). I
agree that there is a significant difference in the relative formalisation
of Agile as compared to UCD, but what I was attempting to do was to look at
two 'ways we do things' and pull out some aspects of each that I thought
were interesting and worthy of further exploration/attention and perhaps
combination.

>So can we drop the pretense that we need to be told to remember the
>user by having a philosophy or even a process named after something
>that is already obvious?

See... my problem with this is that UCD is not about 'remembering the user'
- it's about actual end user involvement.
To me, this is a part of the problem. I believe a lot of people *think*
they're doing User Centred Design when, in actual fact, they're not really
at all... just *thinking* of the user isn't UCD if you've never met them...
at least, not as I interpret it.

If all (or even most) designers were *actually* practicing UCD, if this was
the status quo, then the world would be a somewhat different place, I'd
wager.

________________________
Leisa Reichelt
Disambiguity.com
Contextual Research, User Centred Design & Social Design

leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
+44 778 071 2129
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

17 Aug 2007 - 5:39pm
Mark Schraad
2006

May of the 'agile' folks I talk to lately are embracing both user
centered design and research. They are finding that their clients are
very happy when these are all combined (duh!). Agile seems to be
maturing enough to admit that some research and planning must be
executed prior to the first sprint... and some must occur
simultaneously. I am beginning to like the new agile production process.

Mark

On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:

> Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
>> And while its true the past used to have engineers do a
>> majority of the design work more often than not -- probably
>> how the term UCD originated in the first place -- the field
>> has evolved and changed enough that we should drop that
>> legacy sort of thinking or keep it alive by naming
>> ill-defined processes after it.
>
> Agile is fundamentally *not* user-centered, at least not yet. No Agile
> text I have ever read has treated the user experience as anything more
> than a sinlge page, or even much more than a footnote.
>
> In Agile, the UI is still an afterthought, a skin to decorate
> something
> that was built from the ground up by engineers. The idea that the user
> experience is the "center" of the process is still something that
> needs
> to be evangelized quite a bit.
>
> -Cf
>
> Christopher Fahey
> ____________________________
> Behavior
> http://www.behaviordesign.com
> 212.532.4002 x203
> 646.338.4002 mobile
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

17 Aug 2007 - 5:47pm
Mark Schraad
2006

Exactly... now, if only some of the agile alliance folks understood
this. In one of Constantine's papers he blasts design as nothing more
than trial and error. So what is pure agile... same thing... trial
and error. All this debate has done is raise awareness of agile for
those that coach and consult.

The only reason to have a rigid process is if you are dumbing down
your solutions - or if you are trying to sell it. Every consultancy
has their own branded, product-ized process that is 'guaranteed to
deliver stellar results'. ...'Just let me show you some case
studies.' Typically it is not the process that makes a difference,
but smart people with vision working hard to gain insight so that the
problem can be better defined. Solving it is typically the easiest part.

We need to stop thinking about standardizing process and think more
in terms of structures and methods.

Mark

On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:17 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:

> An Agile specialist told me recently that one of the reasons that
> designers have a hard time understanding Agile is that, well,
> designers
> already work that way. They think that Agile is more complex than it
> really is, whereas in fact a lot of Agile's philosophy is what
> designers
> already do.

17 Aug 2007 - 6:15pm
Kevin Silver1
2006

Bryan's explanation is why I think of process and methodology as
being separate. I can apply UCD methods in a sequential or iterative
manner. At the heart of the Agile method is an iterative process,
but what distinguishes this from an iterative UCD method? Is it
because it's programmer/customer centric vs designer/user centric?
Again in my mind how I do it, one step at a time vs short iterative
cycles differs from have I done user research (part of ucd
methodology) or I'm working only from my own domain knowledge and
experience (genius design).

I fully agree that distinction is far down in the weeds, maybe too
far and could just be semantic nonsense on my part, but I do think
the distinction is valid no matter what you label it.

Kevin

On Aug 17, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Bryan Minihan wrote:

> I agree that it's largely a semantic debate - does it really matter
> whether
> it's a process, methodology, approach, philosophy...do you do it?
> Great.
>
> I think of UCD as a collection of tools that denotes a way of
> incorporating
> something into a project that might not be considered in the very
> strict "I
> have an idea, I wrote a program, I launched it" perspective. In
> the same
> way, building an "enterprise-ready web application" is different from
> building a web site, in that you think about the project in a
> different way,
> apply different tools for measuring its performance, and "think
> about the
> process" differently than you would otherwise do. This is a very
> important
> distinction in our offshore development efforts, btw. The term "user
> centered" is a handy catch-all term to define the purpose of the
> tools you
> use.
>
> So...the UCD toolset/mindset/method/approach/philosophy can be
> applied to an
> Agile or Waterfall methodology, and should.
>
> - Bryan
> http://www.bryanminihan.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
> Christopher Fahey
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 6:12 PM
> To: ixd-discussion Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] UCD a process?
>
> Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
>> And while its true the past used to have engineers do a
>> majority of the design work more often than not -- probably
>> how the term UCD originated in the first place -- the field
>> has evolved and changed enough that we should drop that
>> legacy sort of thinking or keep it alive by naming
>> ill-defined processes after it.
>
> Agile is fundamentally *not* user-centered, at least not yet. No Agile
> text I have ever read has treated the user experience as anything more
> than a sinlge page, or even much more than a footnote.
>
> In Agile, the UI is still an afterthought, a skin to decorate
> something
> that was built from the ground up by engineers. The idea that the user
> experience is the "center" of the process is still something that
> needs
> to be evangelized quite a bit.
>
> -Cf
>
> Christopher Fahey
> ____________________________
> Behavior
> http://www.behaviordesign.com
> 212.532.4002 x203
> 646.338.4002 mobile
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

Kevin Silver
Clearwired Web Services

10899 Montgomery, Suite C
Albuquerque, NM 87109

office: 505.217.3505
toll-free: 866.430.2832
fax: 505.217.3506

e: kevin at clearwired.com
w: www.clearwired.com

17 Aug 2007 - 6:38pm
Christopher Fahey
2005

Kevin Silver wrote:
> I fully agree that distinction is far down in the weeds, maybe too far

> and could just be semantic nonsense on my part, but I do think the
> distinction is valid no matter what you label it.

I guess the question really is: In what context does having different
meanings for "process" and "methodology" help make communication easier?
For example, I could switch the words "process" and "method/methodology"
in your entire last email (or any email in this whole thread for that
matter) and it would make just as much sense.

In every case it's the adjective before the term that captures what
you're really talking about: "iterative", "waterfall", "agile", "UCD".

Not trying to be combative here, but I really don't see a need for this
distinction.

-Cf

Christopher Fahey
____________________________
Behavior
http://www.behaviordesign.com
me: http://www.graphpaper.com

17 Aug 2007 - 6:40pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Aug 17, 2007, at 3:12 PM, Leisa Reichelt wrote:
> See... my problem with this is that UCD is not about 'remembering
> the user' - it's about actual end user involvement.

I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that I don't involve users in
my design processes or just generalizing, but I always have operated
this way. Sometimes formally via researchers and traditional research
methods, more often informally as I don't tend to wait for someone to
connect me to customers before I start asking people for their
feedback on what I'm working on whenever I get the chance. As a
designer where my work is to be used by others, I know of no other
way of working.

What I was trying to say is that I define involving users as the
natural state of being an interface designer -- much like the way
industrial designers are taught to behave and approach their work --
while others in the technology field who are not designers seem to
have attached a redundant term to the front of the word itself. Now
people who pull the purse strings at corporations are starting to
expect some sort of paint by numbers design process, which is the
beginning of the road to design hell imho. By using a redundant term
like "user centered" to describe design and form a process or
philosophy around what I consider a redundant concept, it's as if
someone is trying to tell me that I need to remember to breathe just
to stay alive.

Further, the term "user centered" at a semantic level is entirely
inappropriate as it inherently excludes the other key aspects of what
a designer needs to make competent decisions, namely business and
technology factors. I know a lot of people claim the UCD approach
fundamentally includes those pieces, but semantically the term itself
doesn't. Years later when people forget the origins of the term,
someone is going to bastardize it and abuse it and we'll have a whole
new batch of people trying to correct the process instead of trying
to correct the root of the problem: designers for technology products
simply need to be taught how to design.

Regardless, evolution and time will force that issue like it has in
every other design discipline to date.

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422

17 Aug 2007 - 6:44pm
Mark Schraad
2006

When I think of process I think of a number of steps (or a decision
tree) the total of which is constructed by assembling steps and
methods (not methodology) to reach a specific end. I think of method
(could also be called tools at the research, analysis, strategic and
tactical level) as the micro parts that combine to be the 'process'.
In my world, the process should be customize to solve the specific
problem.

Mark

On Aug 17, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:

> Kevin Silver wrote:
>> I fully agree that distinction is far down in the weeds, maybe too
>> far
>
>> and could just be semantic nonsense on my part, but I do think the
>> distinction is valid no matter what you label it.
>
> I guess the question really is: In what context does having different
> meanings for "process" and "methodology" help make communication
> easier?
> For example, I could switch the words "process" and "method/
> methodology"
> in your entire last email (or any email in this whole thread for that
> matter) and it would make just as much sense.
>
> In every case it's the adjective before the term that captures what
> you're really talking about: "iterative", "waterfall", "agile", "UCD".
>
> Not trying to be combative here, but I really don't see a need for
> this
> distinction.
>
> -Cf
>
> Christopher Fahey
> ____________________________
> Behavior
> http://www.behaviordesign.com
> me: http://www.graphpaper.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

17 Aug 2007 - 7:03pm
Chris Pallé
2007

On Aug 17, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:
I guess the question really is: In what context does having different
meanings for "process" and "methodology" help make communication easier?
For example, I could switch the words "process" and "method/methodology"

Not trying to be combative here, but I really don't see a need for this

It really is true. I typically am first to flag the vocab. police.
The distinctions are important, but in 90% of the conversations here,
they're not. We know what each other is talking about. Let's get to
the core solutions and that make our design processes better and more
effective so that we create better products/applications/services for
our audiences.

I'm saying enough with the hair-splitting word choices and enough
with the apathy to it. I'm putting a fork in it.

chris.pallé, {human} experience design
--------------------------------------------------------
blue flame interactive
732.513.3570
chris.palle at blueflameinteractive.com
http://blueflameinteractive.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/chrispalle

17 Aug 2007 - 7:08pm
Chris Pallé
2007

Crud. Sorry for the ambiguous quote levels.

On Aug 17, 2007, at 8:03 PM, Chris Pallé wrote:

On Aug 17, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:
> I guess the question really is: In what context does having different
> meanings for "process" and "methodology" help make communication
> easier?
> For example, I could switch the words "process" and "method/
> methodology"
>
> Not trying to be combative here, but I really don't see a need for
> this

It really is true. I typically am first to flag the vocab. police.
The distinctions are important, but in 90% of the conversations here,
they're not. We know what each other is talking about. Let's get to
the core solutions and that make our design processes better and more
effective so that we create better products/applications/services for
our audiences.

I'm saying enough with the hair-splitting word choices and enough
with the apathy to it. I'm putting a fork in it.

chris.pallé, {human} experience design
--------------------------------------------------------
blue flame interactive
732.513.3570
chris.palle at blueflameinteractive.com
http://blueflameinteractive.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/chrispalle
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

17 Aug 2007 - 8:39pm
Robert Hoekman, Jr.
2005

(Sorry if this shows up twice - I think I may have sent the last one to a
wrong email address.)

This conversation is already giving me a headache.

When I read the first post in this thread, I thought, "Of course it's a
process - how could it be anything else?" Then I read the post about the AP
talk and thought, "Oh, I get it. Yeah, I would never compare it to Agile or
Waterfall. It's not a process in the same way *those* things are processes."

UCD, really, is a set of deliverables and mindsets and approaches. It's a
lot of things that are intangible, and a few that are tangible. But this
thought process bugs me so I refuse to keep following it.

Some rhetorical questions for you to ponder.

1) First, why does this matter? In the end, who really cares if it's a
process or a methodology? These semantic debates get really tiring. As
interaction designers, we would advocate designs that are clear and concise
and easy to understand, but apparently we can't apply this same logic to
"designing" an outside view our own profession, and thus, continue having
these conversations over and over again.

2) Why is it that after all this time, people struggle so hard to define
what we do for a living?

3) Why don't we recognize that our complete and total failure to come up
with a simple and clear definition of our profession(s) is one of the
primary reasons no one understands what we do (and therefore can think it
valueless)? Is it really like being an "artist"? We can label it but we
can't define it?

It's absurd. Really, really absurd.

-r-

17 Aug 2007 - 9:46pm
Christian Crumlish
2006

btw, someone correct me if I'm remembering wrong, but didn't UCD
originate in Scandinavia as an architectural or city planning process
that literally involved the "end users" in the planning itself?

or am I mixing it up with some other discipline philosophy process
methodology Way?

-x-

--
Christian Crumlish http://xianlandia.com
Yahoo! Pattern Detective http://developer.yahoo.com/ypatterns
IA Institute http://iainstitute.org

17 Aug 2007 - 10:26pm
dszuc
2005

"UCD is not about 'remembering the user' - it's about actual end user
involvement."

Yup! Suggest to can be both. E.g. revisiting assumptions over a sketch about
users (as users will not always be available - assuming you have done some
user involvement along the line). How we do encourage a culture in an
organisation to do the same?

When we speak to clients, we are trying to talk less about our definitions
and process (we may touch on it briefly, really briefly as their eyes glaze
over) and more about jumping directly into the tools that we think can help
their problem and align with their existing process e.g. - "So here are some
ways we can approach this to come up with the answers you are looking for
... "

Rgds,

Daniel Szuc
Principal Usability Consultant
Apogee Usability Asia Ltd
www.apogeehk.com
'Usability in Asia'

The Usability Kit - http://www.theusabilitykit.com

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Leisa
Reichelt
Sent: Saturday, 18 August 2007 6:12 AM
To: Andrei Herasimchuk
Cc: ixd-discussion Mailinglist
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] UCD a process?

first up, I'll say that when choosing the term 'process' I didn't even
consider the difference between methodology and process.... it's a
difference that doesn't really have much meaning for me. In practice, they
both really mean 'how we do things around here'... (although many on this
list will find that informality infuriating... it's how it works for me). I
agree that there is a significant difference in the relative formalisation
of Agile as compared to UCD, but what I was attempting to do was to look at
two 'ways we do things' and pull out some aspects of each that I thought
were interesting and worthy of further exploration/attention and perhaps
combination.

>So can we drop the pretense that we need to be told to remember the
>user by having a philosophy or even a process named after something
>that is already obvious?

See... my problem with this is that UCD is not about 'remembering the user'
- it's about actual end user involvement.
To me, this is a part of the problem. I believe a lot of people *think*
they're doing User Centred Design when, in actual fact, they're not really
at all... just *thinking* of the user isn't UCD if you've never met them...
at least, not as I interpret it.

If all (or even most) designers were *actually* practicing UCD, if this was
the status quo, then the world would be a somewhat different place, I'd
wager.

________________________
Leisa Reichelt
Disambiguity.com
Contextual Research, User Centred Design & Social Design

leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
+44 778 071 2129
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org List Guidelines ............
http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines List Help ..................
http://beta.ixda.org/help Unsubscribe ................
http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

18 Aug 2007 - 11:06am
brennste
2007

I have been struggling to define my user-centered design activities
for a long time. I have called what I do a process, a framework, a
method, a model, etc. (note: recently, I stopped calling what I do
"user-centered design", I now call it "activity-based design".)

The reason I do this is to communicate to the various project teams
what I bring to the table and how it maps to "their" development
process.

If I show them how it fits their process, they are more likely to
accept me, fund the work, and listen to my findings.

I am currently "mapping" my activity-based design activities to the
ADDIE model (which is another story for another time).

Jim

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=19430

18 Aug 2007 - 1:25pm
Tania Schlatter
2007

Leisa,

Your clarification makes a lot of sense and is spot on in terms of
the philosophy or belief that users should be involved in the design
process leading to activities that define the process. If users
should be involved in the process, the next question is "how?" and
the answer - a variety of methods/activities done while designing -
is the process.

Tania

Leisa Reichelt wrote:

> just to clarify -
>
> a) I think that UCD is both a design philosophy and a process... I
> think
> that the process comes from the philosophy, that is that if you
> follow the
> philosophy then a certain process emerges that involves getting
> real user
> insight in order to commence designing and throughout design
> iterations. I'd
> agree that it's *not* a definitive process that everyone agrees to,
> but
> there are certain methods involved and a general order that we'd
> tend to
> apply them. This is, perhaps, in reaction to the many times I've heard
> people/companies claim to be user centred because they 'think'
> about the
> user. Does that make any sense?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tania Schlatter, Principal
Nimble Partners, LLC

18 Aug 2007 - 5:47pm
niklasw
2005

Christopher Fahey wrote:
> Creative people are often fully prepared to rethink fundamental ideas
> right up to the final stages of a project, and (as I've argued many times
> recently) they are always imagining the final result every step of the
> way, even from Day 1.

and

Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
> Why don't we recognize that our complete and total failure to come up
> with a simple and clear definition of our profession(s) is one of the
> primary reasons no one understands what we do (and therefore can think it
> valueless)? Is it really like being an "artist"? We can label it but we
> can't define it?
>
> It's absurd. Really, really absurd.

Sounds to me like you guys are on to something here? Maybe just good
imagination is the key to this whole thing? :-p

--
Niklas Wolkert

Sr. Interaction designer
Ergonomidesign
http://ergonomidesign.se
+46 (0)733 611 227

19 Aug 2007 - 12:42am
Robert Hoekman, Jr.
2005

> Sounds to me like you guys are on to something here? Maybe just good
> imagination is the key to this whole thing? :-p

I actually thought once that what we need in the world is more "interaction
artists", so that we don't focus too much on purely utilitarian interfaces
that lack anything really compelling. Brendan Dawes is a great example. He's
one of the most innovative artists I've seen, and his work is grounded very
much in interaction design.

-r-

20 Aug 2007 - 11:59am
Kevin Silver1
2006

Chris,

I don't think you're being combative -- I think questioning and
challenging adds to the discussion and at least makes me think harder
about what I'm saying. I wanted to respond to this, even though Mark
had a great delineating the difference between process and
methodology and that this thread has taken on a different course over
the weekend.

On Aug 17, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:

> I guess the question really is: In what context does having different
> meanings for "process" and "methodology" help make communication
> easier?

I have worked in various environments and in discussing "how we
should do things" I always found to useful to separate process from
methodology, especially when considering the larger view of a
development process. The reason why is because it simplifies the
discussion. First by discussing process I can specifically identify
whether or not we want to iterate to build the solution and I am
talking beyond any brainstorming or sketch work that I might do as a
designer. Or do we want to lay out our plans neatly and have more of
a sequential process that facilitates this. It allows me to talk
about the steps I/team (including developers, which at one point
included me) takes before talking about applying a certain method.
Do we have the resources to truly do something user centered, do we
just want to talk with our stakeholders (customers in Agile, correct
me if I'm wrong) with no user input, or am I just going to create the
solution that I think works the best? Again thinking like this has
allowed me to get at the heart of "how we should do things" without
worrying about the stigmas of UCD or Aigle, etc... It comes down to
this are we iterating or are we sequential? How we iterate or be
sequential is where we apply a certain method or variation of. I
haven't always thought like this and it has come about after
realizing that my hard fought battles over process and methodology
aren't productive and what terminology can I use to cut to the chase,
especially for those who aren't familiar with UCD, Aigle, etc...
Hope that answers your question.

Kevin

Kevin Silver
Clearwired Web Services

10899 Montgomery, Suite C
Albuquerque, NM 87109

office: 505.217.3505
toll-free: 866.430.2832
fax: 505.217.3506

e: kevin at clearwired.com
w: www.clearwired.com

21 Aug 2007 - 7:20am
stauciuc
2006

Maybe it has helped you then. But the point was it is not helping [our]
communication. And indeed it hasn't at all.

I may see process as something more basic and methodology as something more
detailed, but that doesn't help me at all if whom I'm talking to sees them
vice-versa. We should be good at understanding contexts, right? Let's just
look at the context, understand (or agree on) what the other person is
trying to say and get on with it..

Sebi

On 8/20/07, Kevin Silver <kevin at clearwired.com> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> I don't think you're being combative -- I think questioning and
> challenging adds to the discussion and at least makes me think harder
> about what I'm saying. I wanted to respond to this, even though Mark
> had a great delineating the difference between process and
> methodology and that this thread has taken on a different course over
> the weekend.
>
> On Aug 17, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:
>
> > I guess the question really is: In what context does having different
> > meanings for "process" and "methodology" help make communication
> > easier?
>
>
> I have worked in various environments and in discussing "how we
> should do things" I always found to useful to separate process from
> methodology, especially when considering the larger view of a
> development process. The reason why is because it simplifies the
> discussion. First by discussing process I can specifically identify
> whether or not we want to iterate to build the solution and I am
> talking beyond any brainstorming or sketch work that I might do as a
> designer. Or do we want to lay out our plans neatly and have more of
> a sequential process that facilitates this. It allows me to talk
> about the steps I/team (including developers, which at one point
> included me) takes before talking about applying a certain method.
> Do we have the resources to truly do something user centered, do we
> just want to talk with our stakeholders (customers in Agile, correct
> me if I'm wrong) with no user input, or am I just going to create the
> solution that I think works the best? Again thinking like this has
> allowed me to get at the heart of "how we should do things" without
> worrying about the stigmas of UCD or Aigle, etc... It comes down to
> this are we iterating or are we sequential? How we iterate or be
> sequential is where we apply a certain method or variation of. I
> haven't always thought like this and it has come about after
> realizing that my hard fought battles over process and methodology
> aren't productive and what terminology can I use to cut to the chase,
> especially for those who aren't familiar with UCD, Aigle, etc...
> Hope that answers your question.
>
> Kevin
>
> Kevin Silver
> Clearwired Web Services
>
> 10899 Montgomery, Suite C
> Albuquerque, NM 87109
>
> office: 505.217.3505
> toll-free: 866.430.2832
> fax: 505.217.3506
>
> e: kevin at clearwired.com
> w: www.clearwired.com
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

--
Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/

Syndicate content Get the feed