User-centred design, user interface design, web design, HCI and usability

Lord, Ralph | 12 Sep 2003 16:59

Heresy!

I am certain this communication from me may seem unpolished and informal in
that we have not yet met. Be assured that your email was given me by a
member of the international committee for email popularity as a
distinguished person who may be interested in my trustworthy proposal.

Oh, ha, ha, enough of the faux email scam drivel.  However, if you want to
send me a bank account number...

Here's what I really want to discuss:

"Does Interaction Design have to be user-centered?"

In doing a little googling on the matter, it seems that most people define
interaction design as requiring some kind of user research, CI, ethnography,
whatever.  But is that a characteristic of ID or just user-centered ID?
What about ID that is based on existing use-cases, actor lists, and such
from the development team or the analysts. Does that qualify?

Ralph Lord

    --------------------------------------------------------------
     POSTINGS (in plain text): list_name_here <at> LISTS.SYNTAGM.CO.UK
           SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES:  http://lists.syntagm.co.uk
            (or send email to mailto:whudson <at> syntagm.co.uk)
    --------------------------------------------------------------

headers

Todd R. Warfel | 12 Sep 2003 19:05

Re: Heresy!

That's useful. But better design comes from involving users. So, if the
process is done correctly, and users were involved in the process of
developing use-cases, actor lists (personas), etc. then that would
qualify as user-centered.

There's caution in using these pieces w/o involving users. A recent
client created their own personas (actors), which were marketing driven
(drivel). They were essentially useless, not to mention problematic,
when it came to time for design/development.

On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 8:59 AM, Lord, Ralph wrote:

> What about ID that is based on existing use-cases, actor lists, and
> such
> from the development team or the analysts. Does that qualify?
>
> Ralph Lord

Cheers!

Todd R. Warfel
User Experience Architect
Message First | making products easier to use
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
voice:  (607) 339-9640
email:  twarfel <at> messagefirst.com
web:    www.messagefirst.com
aim:            twarfel <at> mac.com
--------------------------------------

(Continue reading)

headers

Joshua Seiden | 12 Sep 2003 20:43

Re: Heresy!

Related to your query:

http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/searching_for_the_center_of_desig
n.php

> "Does Interaction Design have to be user-centered?"

_______________________________

Joshua Seiden

josh <at> 36partners.com
www.36partners.com
_______________________________

    --------------------------------------------------------------
     POSTINGS (in plain text): list_name_here <at> LISTS.SYNTAGM.CO.UK
           SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES:  http://lists.syntagm.co.uk
            (or send email to mailto:whudson <at> syntagm.co.uk)
    --------------------------------------------------------------

headers

Johan Berndtsson | 12 Sep 2003 20:10

Re: Heresy!

Hi Ralph,

Of course it does not. There is lots of interactive art which is not in
any way based on user research. It still takes interaction design to
design interactive products. I would even go so far as to argue that
interaction design is always done when an interactive product is
developed, but it is not always done by an "interaction designer". And
this might be what you are looking for. I would gess that most people
who call themselves "interaction designers", as opposed to "artists" or
"system developers" have at least one foot in user centered design.

/Johan

-----Original Message-----
From: User-centred design, user interface design, web design, HCI and
usability [mailto:UCD <at> listserv.SYNTAGM.CO.UK] On Behalf Of Lord, Ralph
Sent: den 12 september 2003 17:00
To: UCD <at> listserv.SYNTAGM.CO.UK
Subject: Heresy!

I am certain this communication from me may seem unpolished and informal
in that we have not yet met. Be assured that your email was given me by
a member of the international committee for email popularity as a
distinguished person who may be interested in my trustworthy proposal.

Oh, ha, ha, enough of the faux email scam drivel.  However, if you want
to send me a bank account number...

Here's what I really want to discuss:

(Continue reading)

headers

Anthony Colfelt | 15 Sep 2003 19:10

Re: Heresy!

I know a fairly well respected person in the industry, who has started championing 'Designer Centred
Design' which has the hackles on the back of my neck standing up.

This person's rationale is that as designers of interaction (or insert related job title), its our job to
know what users can and can't do, not to ask them what they can and can't do (through testing or other means).
This may appeal to the inner self-indulgent and lazy designer that I beat into remission some 4 years ago.
But it does raise a few interesting points for the designer I am today.

Here's one...

If we're always asking for validation from our user base on everything we do from project start to project
finish, where does innovation come into the frame? Surely if we are always making design choices based on
what users can and cannot do, how do we introduce new (and preferrably learnable) mental models into our
user's psychy? Does making something usable and understandable first and foremost, trounce any
inspiration that may yield 'weird' or shall we say 'innovative' ways of defining a system model?

Does this get anyone else in knots?

Anthony Colfelt
  Senior Designer | BBCi Development & Services
    6th Floor | Bush House - NW | Strand | London WC2B 4PH
      PH: 0207 557 3471 | MOB: 0779 617 4878
        anthony.colfelt <at> bbc.co.uk

> ----------
> From:         Johan Berndtsson
> Reply To:     Johan Berndtsson
> Sent:         Friday, September 12, 2003 07:10 pm
> To:   UCD <at> LISTS.SYNTAGM.CO.UK
> Subject:      Re: Heresy!

(Continue reading)

headers

Vanessa Wolfe-Coote | 16 Sep 2003 10:17

Re: Heresy!

Anthony Colfelt wrote:
>Surely if we are always making design choices based on what users can and
>cannot do, how do we introduce new (and preferrably learnable) mental
>models into our user's psychy? Does making something usable and
>understandable first and foremost, trounce any inspiration that may yield
>'weird' or shall we say 'innovative' ways of defining a system model?

That depends if one focuses on 'user ability to do' vs. 'user ability to
learn' in conceptualising a design. The latter opens the door to the
innovation you speak of. Also if we stop asking users and instead make
assumptions about their abilities, we are unable to see how users have
adapted to new models and run the risk of 'safe' or stagnant design (in
other words, sticking to what you know).

Vanessa

Vanessa Wolfe-Coote
+44 7968 781 340

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

    --------------------------------------------------------------
     POSTINGS (in plain text): list_name_here <at> LISTS.SYNTAGM.CO.UK
           SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES:  http://lists.syntagm.co.uk
            (or send email to mailto:whudson <at> syntagm.co.uk)
    --------------------------------------------------------------

(Continue reading)

headers

Gilbert Cockton | 16 Sep 2003 12:56

Re: Heresy! - No, reality, but with risks that may be unwise

One can design interaction however one wants. Tossing coins is an option, hence fate-centred
design is a possibility. The question must' interaction design be user-centred must be false.
How could it be true? What could force it to be user-centred?

There are many possible approaches to design . There are no
inevitable consequencesof (not) being user-centred. Good design happens without being user-centred,
and bad design is not impossible when being user-centred.

It is not a question of being user-centred, usage-centred, designer-centred or art-centred.
What matters is how we approach design and what guarantees come with different approaches.
Very little can be said with any confidence at a level of abstraction that is as vague as
'centredness'.

HCI is about risk management. Being user-centred should reduce a range of known risks of
systems failure or unacceptability, but only if the design team focuses on what is unacceptable
and what will really make a system fail. In this sense, if we want a design focus at all, it should
be success-centred !

Designing without any idea of what constitutes success is the real danger, and this is just as
easy in a supposedly user-centred setting as in any other. Indeed, any approach to design
that assumes that some element of quality in use must predominate is highly risky.
Success depends on a wide range of outcomes, and usability and user acceptance are only
part of this.

Our job in HCI is not to dominate the design process or to insist on a fixed set of approaches.
Our job is to understand the human risks to success associated with usability and misfit with
the context of use, and to work with project sponsors to get them to identify where success
must include usability, user acceptance and system fit. The latter can only be achieved reliably
and consistently within a user-centred approach.

(Continue reading)

headers

Rick Cecil | 16 Sep 2003 02:00

Re: Heresy!

> If we're always asking for validation from our user base on
> everything we do from project start to project finish, where does
> innovation come into the frame?

Innovation is still possible--and even more probable--when using a
user-centered design approach. By observing your users, you are watching
them encounter and address real problems. Their solutions may not be
perfect, but it is the best they can manage given their current toolset. In
watching them struggle, you gain unique insight into what they want to do
and can enable the product so that they can accomplish their tasks.

Further, you should also innovate at every step of the way and check with
users to test your innovations. Perhaps you've found something your users
will appreciate, perhaps not. At the very least, you'll gain insight on how
to improve your innovations. Remember, innovation solves problems. People
may not realize they have the problem just, yet. But once they try your
inovative product/service, and they really like it, you can bet that they
will continue to use the product/service.

-Rick

    --------------------------------------------------------------
     POSTINGS (in plain text): list_name_here <at> LISTS.SYNTAGM.CO.UK
           SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES:  http://lists.syntagm.co.uk
            (or send email to mailto:whudson <at> syntagm.co.uk)
    --------------------------------------------------------------

headers

Tom Dolan | 16 Sep 2003 17:04

Re: Heresy! - No, reality, but with risks that may be unwise

Bravo Gilbert, great mail (flagged for future reference).

As Gilbert said so well, "Designing without any idea of what
constitutes success is the real danger..." Our assumption (which is a
good one) is that knowing what the user will want, or being
user-centered, helps us define success. This is of course a good thing.
I would echo Gilbert's point-of-view in venturing that this is a
starting point, not an end point.

Simply, we must operate like a chef, who certainly must possess basic,
fundamental knowledge about what flavors and textures go well together
and what people will [often] find delicious. Cooking to please the
masses may guarantee success but rarely does it yield art or joy or
noteworthy advancement. It is possible to do both, but I firmly believe
this means the creator/designer/author/chef must bring inspiration and
creativity to the table and pursue the right mix of user-centered-ness
and creative vision. This is the creative job, and it has always been
thus, no? Examples abound in older fields such as product design,
graphics, architecture, etc.

Best, Tom

On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 03:56  AM, Gilbert Cockton wrote:

> Good design happens without being user-centred, and bad design is not
> impossible when being user-centred.

- - - - - - - - - -

Tom Dolan

(Continue reading)

headers

George Olsen | 17 Sep 2003 06:47

Re: Heresy!

On 9/15/03 10:10 AM, "Anthony Colfelt" <anthony.colfelt <at> BBC.CO.UK> wrote:

> If we're always asking for validation from our user base on everything we do
> from project start to project finish, where does innovation come into the
> frame? Surely if we are always making design choices based on what users can
> and cannot do, how do we introduce new (and preferrably learnable) mental
> models into our user's psychy? Does making something usable and understandable
> first and foremost, trounce any inspiration that may yield 'weird' or shall we
> say 'innovative' ways of defining a system model?

I had some thoughts on this awhile back
<http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/the_new_rd_relevant_desirable.php>

Long and short of it... Getting insight from users and validating designs
against users doesn't mean one abdicates _designing._ There's a value in
user-focused design and a value in vision-based design, the question is when
each is more appropriate.

George

    --------------------------------------------------------------
     POSTINGS (in plain text): list_name_here <at> LISTS.SYNTAGM.CO.UK
           SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES:  http://lists.syntagm.co.uk
            (or send email to mailto:whudson <at> syntagm.co.uk)
    --------------------------------------------------------------

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

1	May 2013
3	April 2013
2	March 2013
1	February 2013
3	January 2013
4	December 2012
3	November 2012
5	October 2012
6	September 2012
4	August 2012
4	July 2012
4	June 2012
3	May 2012
1	March 2012
1	January 2012
1	December 2011
1	October 2011
1	September 2011
1	May 2011
2	January 2011
1	December 2010
1	September 2010
1	August 2010
2	July 2010
1	May 2010
1	March 2010
1	February 2010
1	November 2009
2	September 2009
1	August 2009
2	July 2009
4	June 2009
1	May 2009
2	April 2009
12	March 2009
6	February 2009
6	May 2008
2	April 2008
3	March 2008
1	August 2007
2	June 2007
5	March 2007
1	February 2007
1	August 2006
1	July 2006
3	May 2006
1	April 2006
1	March 2006
2	January 2006
1	December 2005
1	October 2005
2	September 2005
1	August 2005
1	July 2005
1	May 2005
1	April 2005
1	March 2005
10	January 2005
1	December 2004
11	October 2004
1	September 2004
1	May 2004
10	April 2004
2	March 2004
5	February 2004
1	January 2004
4	December 2003
21	November 2003
19	October 2003
34	September 2003
4	August 2003
6	June 2003
11	May 2003
63	April 2003
29	March 2003
9	February 2003
38	January 2003