RE: Prototypes, process, and ID (RE: [interactionarchitects] Re: process ... the next generation)
28 Oct 2003 - 9:25am
10 years ago
--- 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. One of the roles for a professional > group, in my opinion, is to advocate better design practice to the other > professions we interact with. But the point I'm really making is that, > yes > we need to be flexible with process, but not with quality.
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 believe that we usually work with
organizations and clients that are not mature/wise with regards to design
and usability. As a result of this immaturity and inexperience, being
inflexible ends up being counterproductive.
We need to educate, advocate, and lead. At the same time, how we do that
and what we do needs to match the maturity of the organization and the
situation or we run the risk of having *no* impact at all if we aren't
included. It's usually easier to draw, nudge, and lead a horse along than
trying to drag it where it doesn't want to go, and I've found that the same
is true with people/organizations.
Ron Vutpakdi vutpakdi at acm.org