say no to genius design

25 Jan 2009 - 12:29am
5 years ago
29 replies
1090 reads
Jarod Tang
2007

as guys keep asking "genius design", and seems some newbie designer
take it as the secret path to grand design success, which is not a
good thing from my understanding.

from http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/designing-for-interaction-an-interview-with-dan-saffer
"Genius design is when the designer relies on his or her own
experience and skill to design, without any input from users. It's
done by designers who either don't have the resources or the
inclination or temperament to do research. Too often, it is practiced
by inexperienced designers with little skill, but it can and has been
used by many designers to create impressive things. Reportedly, the
iPod was made with no user research, for example.
"
there's many problems from this discription,
1. "Reportedly, the iPod was made with no user research, for example",
as we know iPod is not first portable musice player, with many
previous players, with bounch of user's feedback, so even by criitcle
design, he also get user's feedback indirectly(so he did get user's
input). Further, apple designer adjust the design generation by
generation, what's the driven force? user's feedback of cuz.(how can
one explain it in other way?)
2. "relies on his or her own experience and skills to design, without
any input from users". With doubtfull iPod case, it's solid to say
one cant can create a produce without user's feedback, with one
expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he visit outter
user)
3, with one expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he
visit outter user), this is not because of genius but because he's the
user

Genius is died ( or never there), thy user is long life.

There's genius designer instead of genius design, who can
1. have good sense of good or bad design
2. come up with spark design solutions according to insight on user
3. empathy with user effectively.

Regards,
Jarod

--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

Comments

25 Jan 2009 - 1:07am
Angel Marquez
2008

谢谢!

25 Jan 2009 - 1:39am
Andrew Boyd
2008

Hi Jarod,

some unkind observers may have referred to this same phenomenon as
"ego-driven design" - notwithstanding that there will be some people that
can get away with it some or most of the time through either absolute domain
knowledge or sheer blind luck (and there is a tendency for some people to
confuse one with the other). I know some people that I would trust to get it
right most of the time within a set task domain and a specific set of end
users that they have worked with in the past - but they are the exception.

Other wiser heads than mine have said it many times in the past - the design
is always tested, either before release or after. Cheaper to test earlier.

For myself, I am happiest when I can involve users early and often in the
research/design/evaluation process.

Best regards, Andrew

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com> wrote:

> as guys keep asking "genius design", and seems some newbie designer
> take it as the secret path to grand design success, which is not a
> good thing from my understanding.
>
> from
> http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/designing-for-interaction-an-interview-with-dan-saffer
> "Genius design is when the designer relies on his or her own
> experience and skill to design, without any input from users. It's
> done by designers who either don't have the resources or the
> inclination or temperament to do research. Too often, it is practiced
> by inexperienced designers with little skill, but it can and has been
> used by many designers to create impressive things. Reportedly, the
> iPod was made with no user research, for example.
> "
> there's many problems from this discription,
> 1. "Reportedly, the iPod was made with no user research, for example",
> as we know iPod is not first portable musice player, with many
> previous players, with bounch of user's feedback, so even by criitcle
> design, he also get user's feedback indirectly(so he did get user's
> input). Further, apple designer adjust the design generation by
> generation, what's the driven force? user's feedback of cuz.(how can
> one explain it in other way?)
> 2. "relies on his or her own experience and skills to design, without
> any input from users". With doubtfull iPod case, it's solid to say
> one cant can create a produce without user's feedback, with one
> expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he visit outter
> user)
> 3, with one expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he
> visit outter user), this is not because of genius but because he's the
> user
>
> Genius is died ( or never there), thy user is long life.
>
> There's genius designer instead of genius design, who can
> 1. have good sense of good or bad design
> 2. come up with spark design solutions according to insight on user
> 3. empathy with user effectively.
>
> Regards,
> Jarod
>
> --
> http://designforuse.blogspot.com/
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
---
Andrew Boyd
http://uxbookclub.org -- connect, read, discuss

25 Jan 2009 - 8:20am
Jim Hoekema
2004

This reminds me of a debate I used to have about instructional design.
My friend liked to contrast the "scientific" approach, based on
research, with the "intuitive" approach, based on... well, he would
said nothing but instinct. I would say that while the scientific
approach breaks everything down into individually verifiable tidbits,
the intuitive approach simply makes a great many - just as rational -
decisions at once.

Of course, the catch is that the results are good only when the person
making the intuitive design decisions is really smart, understand
technology, and has a great instinct for users as well. When Steve
Jobs does it, it usually comes out pretty well (ipod) but not always
(Newton - or was he gone then?)! Anyway, there are some designers who
have a good sense of what works and what doesn't.

(BTW another factor in the Jobs/iPod success is that the designer had
the power to see the concept through to complete expression in all
aspects; many great concepts get watered down and compromised through
bureaucratic compromise, turf wars, etc.)

Sure, some testing is better than no testing, and before release is
better than after, but there are some critical limitations of testing
to keep in mind:
- Testing is not design. Testing reveals problems, but simply
reversing the condition you tested is seldom the best design solution.
Usually there are clusters of related issues, and to solve them well,
it takes design, and creative design always involves some element of
integrative "intuition" or, if you well, "genius."
- You can't test everything - except in the case of the final product
in the market (though even there success can be influenced by non-
product factors). During development, you can choose the aspects you
are most uncertain about and test them and improve them, but you never
know - some aspect that you thought was a no-brainer could turn out to
be the most problematic for users.
- Don't forget the factor of fashion! Sometimes the market likes
something that doesn't make a lot of sense but just seems new and
fresh! These things seldom come out of research.

In short, a bit of research never hurts, but it's not substitute for
creative design.

Cheers,
- Jim

25 Jan 2009 - 8:51am
Jarod Tang
2007

Hi Jim,

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 9:20 PM, JimH <jim at hoekema.com> wrote:
> This reminds me of a debate I used to have about instructional design.
> My friend liked to contrast the "scientific" approach, based on
> research, with the "intuitive" approach, based on... well, he would
> said nothing but instinct. I would say that while the scientific
> approach breaks everything down into individually verifiable tidbits,
> the intuitive approach simply makes a great many - just as rational -
> decisions at once.
>

I often do like following, do design research first, and keep in zen
mind-set for enough time(this is a art, as we know, many designers
have their own style at this phase ), and the design intuitively with
team brain storming. The point is design research is not conflict with
intuivitive approach, instead it's the precondition that enabling
intuitive approach for solid and fruitfull design.

Regards,
Jarod
--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

25 Jan 2009 - 11:14am
Mark Schraad
2006

If you search the discussions here you will find many spirited
conversations surrounding 'genius' design. The connotation being a
smart approach to design, which it very often isn't. I think Dan's
intent (please correct me if I am wrong Dan) was to put a label on
design that is largely executed without direct user input or
research. There several several facets of this.

1) young or uninitiated designers that don't know better.

2) those that cannot or will not allocate resources for user research.

3) designers with extraordinary domain expertise... that can be
successful without user or market investigations specific to a project

4) designers who are largely designing for themselves, or people just
like themselves.

Judge the application of 'genius design' as you will... but the
debate is clearly still a flash point for some.

The term 'ego-centric design' was received with a great deal of
defensiveness. While I am not sure who coined it, I know that when I
used it, it was meant to signify that the designer was at the center
of product knowledge and the vision... thus making many design
decisions without the benefit of user research (without the rather
subjective judgement of smart vs. not smart). I certainly never
intended for its use to be interpreted as 'ego-maniac' or 'arrogant'
designer.

Genius design Is not a great label or term, but the community at
large as failed to come up with anything better... and well, it is in
print.

Mark

On Jan 25, 2009, at 1:39 AM, Andrew Boyd wrote:

> Hi Jarod,
>
> some unkind observers may have referred to this same phenomenon as
> "ego-driven design" - notwithstanding that there will be some
> people that
> can get away with it some or most of the time through either
> absolute domain
> knowledge or sheer blind luck (and there is a tendency for some
> people to
> confuse one with the other). I know some people that I would trust
> to get it
> right most of the time within a set task domain and a specific set
> of end
> users that they have worked with in the past - but they are the
> exception.
>
> Other wiser heads than mine have said it many times in the past -
> the design
> is always tested, either before release or after. Cheaper to test
> earlier.
>
> For myself, I am happiest when I can involve users early and often
> in the
> research/design/evaluation process.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> as guys keep asking "genius design", and seems some newbie designer
>> take it as the secret path to grand design success, which is not a
>> good thing from my understanding.
>>
>> from
>> http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/designing-for-interaction-an-
>> interview-with-dan-saffer
>> "Genius design is when the designer relies on his or her own
>> experience and skill to design, without any input from users. It's
>> done by designers who either don't have the resources or the
>> inclination or temperament to do research. Too often, it is practiced
>> by inexperienced designers with little skill, but it can and has been
>> used by many designers to create impressive things. Reportedly, the
>> iPod was made with no user research, for example.
>> "
>> there's many problems from this discription,
>> 1. "Reportedly, the iPod was made with no user research, for
>> example",
>> as we know iPod is not first portable musice player, with many
>> previous players, with bounch of user's feedback, so even by criitcle
>> design, he also get user's feedback indirectly(so he did get user's
>> input). Further, apple designer adjust the design generation by
>> generation, what's the driven force? user's feedback of cuz.(how can
>> one explain it in other way?)
>> 2. "relies on his or her own experience and skills to design, without
>> any input from users". With doubtfull iPod case, it's solid to say
>> one cant can create a produce without user's feedback, with one
>> expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he visit outter
>> user)
>> 3, with one expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he
>> visit outter user), this is not because of genius but because he's
>> the
>> user
>>
>> Genius is died ( or never there), thy user is long life.
>>
>> There's genius designer instead of genius design, who can
>> 1. have good sense of good or bad design
>> 2. come up with spark design solutions according to insight on user
>> 3. empathy with user effectively.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jarod
>>
>> --
>> http://designforuse.blogspot.com/
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ---
> Andrew Boyd
> http://uxbookclub.org -- connect, read, discuss
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

25 Jan 2009 - 11:25am
Dan Saffer
2003

On Jan 24, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Jarod Tang wrote:

> 1. "Reportedly, the iPod was made with no user research, for example",
> as we know iPod is not first portable musice player, with many
> previous players, with bounch of user's feedback, so even by criitcle
> design, he also get user's feedback indirectly(so he did get user's
> input).

Competitive analysis is not the same as generative user research.

> Further, apple designer adjust the design generation by
> generation, what's the driven force? user's feedback of cuz.(how can
> one explain it in other way?)

Again, getting feedback from a product already on the market has
nothing to do with creating a product via a user-centered design
approach.

>
> 2. "relies on his or her own experience and skills to design, without
> any input from users". With doubtfull iPod case, it's solid to say
> one cant can create a produce without user's feedback, with one
> expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he visit outter
> user)

Everything I've read about the genesis of the iPod, including the
definitive "The Perfect Thing" by Steve Levy backs up my assertion.

People create products all the time without user feedback *into the
initial design process.* I've done it many times, as have probably
many of the people on this list.

>
> 3, with one expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he
> visit outter user), this is not because of genius but because he's the
> user
>
> Genius is died ( or never there), thy user is long life.

Designers with insight, skill, and experience will always be able to
design beautiful or at least functional products that people want to
use. In fact, one could argue that nearly everything we use has been
designed this way. UCD didn't create the GUI, the car, email, Twitter,
ATM machines, the Wii, the iPhone, dishwashers, washing machines,
laptops, etc etc etc.

Dan

Dan Saffer
Principal, Kicker Studio
http://www.kickerstudio.com
http://www.odannyboy.com

25 Jan 2009 - 12:47pm
Jeff Howard
2004

I prefer to think of this as "extemporaneous design," with the
obvious reference to extemporaneous speaking.

To do either well requires mountains of talent and adherence to
specific methods but not much in the way of explicit preparation. For
me, the term captures the seat-of-your-pants nature of the foray.

Extemporaneous design also focuses more on the nature of the process
and less on the qualities of the designer. In that way, it exhibits
better parallelism with user-centered and activity-centered design.

Finally, it covers those situations where the designers clearly
aren't geniuses.

// jeff

Mark wrote:
> Genius design Is not a great label or term, but the
> community at large as failed to come up with anything
> better... and well, it is in print.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37589

25 Jan 2009 - 2:12pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jan 25, 2009, at 8:14 AM, mark schraad wrote:

> 1) young or uninitiated designers that don't know better.
>
> 2) those that cannot or will not allocate resources for user research.
>
> 3) designers with extraordinary domain expertise... that can be
> successful without user or market investigations specific to a project
>
> 4) designers who are largely designing for themselves, or people
> just like themselves.

In this IxDA post: http://www.ixda.org/discuss.php?post=35466 and in
this article: http://is.gd/gLAQ
I attempt to describe what we've seen in our research studying teams
over the past 10 years.

We've found it useful to break these different "decision styles" into
five categories: Unintended design, Self Design, Genius Design,
Activity-Focused Design, and User-Focused Design. (Note: I changed our
terminology from Activity-Centered and User-Centered, because those
terms carried baggage that we didn't intend when we were talking about
this, thus muddling the discussion.)

In your categorization, I'd consider #1 and #2 to likely be Unintended
Design, but it would be hard to tell without more study of the
specific design practice. (The other option is just "Poor Design",
whereby the team is just acting incompetently. As I recently
twittered: Competence is bounded but incompetence has no such
boundaries.)

#3 is what we'd call Genius Design, in that it leverages the existing
experience and knowledge of the design team without the need for
further research. We've seen this many times in our travels and have
come to believe it's a solid style that often has positive outcomes.

#4 is what we'd call Self Design. This can work really well in some
niches, such as musicians creating instruments that they themselves
will perform with. (Many don't know this but this is how Bill Buxton
got started in computers.) In our research, we've met surgeons who
created surgical tools and receiving dock managers who created
enterprise supply chain software.

In all these cases, a "good design" outcome is possible. However, our
early research results (we're still working on this, though we're
sharing a lot of it in our upcoming roadshow -- http://www.uie.com/events/roadshow/
) shows that the more informed the design decisions, the better the
end experiences for the users. Informed decisions can come from many
places, but rarely happen by accident.

Hope that helps,

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com

25 Jan 2009 - 2:21pm
Angel Marquez
2008

So, where would you draw that fine line that defines when your expert
opinion overides the users bad habits? Novice users do become power
users shedding guilty design pleasures in the process.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 25, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 24, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Jarod Tang wrote:
>
>> 1. "Reportedly, the iPod was made with no user research, for
>> example",
>> as we know iPod is not first portable musice player, with many
>> previous players, with bounch of user's feedback, so even by criitcle
>> design, he also get user's feedback indirectly(so he did get user's
>> input).
>
> Competitive analysis is not the same as generative user research.
>
>> Further, apple designer adjust the design generation by
>> generation, what's the driven force? user's feedback of cuz.(how can
>> one explain it in other way?)
>
> Again, getting feedback from a product already on the market has
> nothing to do with creating a product via a user-centered design
> approach.
>
>>
>> 2. "relies on his or her own experience and skills to design, without
>> any input from users". With doubtfull iPod case, it's solid to say
>> one cant can create a produce without user's feedback, with one
>> expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he visit outter
>> user)
>
> Everything I've read about the genesis of the iPod, including the
> definitive "The Perfect Thing" by Steve Levy backs up my assertion.
>
> People create products all the time without user feedback *into the
> initial design process.* I've done it many times, as have probably
> many of the people on this list.
>
>
>>
>> 3, with one expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he
>> visit outter user), this is not because of genius but because he's
>> the
>> user
>>
>> Genius is died ( or never there), thy user is long life.
>
> Designers with insight, skill, and experience will always be able to
> design beautiful or at least functional products that people want to
> use. In fact, one could argue that nearly everything we use has been
> designed this way. UCD didn't create the GUI, the car, email,
> Twitter, ATM machines, the Wii, the iPhone, dishwashers, washing
> machines, laptops, etc etc etc.
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Dan Saffer
> Principal, Kicker Studio
> http://www.kickerstudio.com
> http://www.odannyboy.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

25 Jan 2009 - 2:50pm
Todd Warfel
2003

People evolve.

We used to all use manual typewriters.

On Jan 25, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Angel wrote:

> So, where would you draw that fine line that defines when your
> expert opinion overides the users bad habits? Novice users do become
> power users shedding guilty design pleasures in the process.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter: zakiwarfel
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

25 Jan 2009 - 6:58pm
dirtandrust
2008

"Genius Design" = "Intelligent Design".

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37589

25 Jan 2009 - 7:29pm
Jarod Tang
2007

@Jared
>#3 is what we'd call Genius Design, in that it leverages the existing experience and >knowledge of the design team without the need for further research. We've seen this >many times in our travels and have come to believe it's a solid style that often has >positive outcomes.
Agree, it possible. But do maybe mark already anwsered the question
"Genius design Is not a great label or term, but the community at
large as failed to come up with anything better... and well, it is in
print."?

@ Josephine,
> Would you mind very much reviewing it, making the corrections necessary, and
> reposting it?
Reframed it as following.

Guys are keep asking "genius design", and it seems to me some newbie designers
take it as a secret path to great design success, which is not a good
thing from my understanding.

from http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/designing-for-interaction-an-interview-with-dan-saffer
"Genius design is when the designer relies on his or her own
experience and skill to design, without any input from users. It's
done by designers who either don't have the resources or the
inclination or temperament to do research. Too often, it is practiced
by inexperienced designers with little skill, but it can and has been
used by many designers to create impressive things. Reportedly, the
iPod was made with no user research, for example.
"

there's problems from this description,
1. "Reportedly, the iPod was made with no user research, for example".
As we know, iPod is not first portable music player. iPod designers
may do critical design according to previous music player and the user
feedback indirectly(so they do get user's input). Further, apple
designer adjust the design generation by generation, what's the driven
force? user's feedback. (how it be explained in other way?)
2. "relies on his or her own experience and skills to design, without
any input from users". With doubtful iPod case, it's solid to say
one cant can create a produce without user's feedback, with one
exception, himself is the user ( so he may not visit other user)
3, With one exception, he himself is the user. This is not because of
genius design but because he's the user so he can understand user from
his own using experience.

Genius is died (or never existed there), thy user is long-life.

There's genius designer instead of genius design, who
1. has good sense of good or bad design
2. come up with spark design solutions according to insight on user
3. can empathy with user effectively

Regards,
Jarod

--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

25 Jan 2009 - 8:15pm
Jarod Tang
2007

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 24, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Jarod Tang wrote:
>
>> 1. "Reportedly, the iPod was made with no user research, for example",
>> as we know iPod is not first portable musice player, with many
>> previous players, with bounch of user's feedback, so even by criitcle
>> design, he also get user's feedback indirectly(so he did get user's
>> input).
>
> Competitive analysis is not the same as generative user research.
>
>> Further, apple designer adjust the design generation by
>> generation, what's the driven force? user's feedback of cuz.(how can
>> one explain it in other way?)
>
> Again, getting feedback from a product already on the market has nothing to
> do with creating a product via a user-centered design approach.
This depends on how we define the goal of existing product analyze.
The feedback and anayze is to reveal how a product fit or not fit into
user's life, so what's inside the core of the analyze other than
user, user's needs, movtivations, behaviour patterns? So the essential
part is still know the user, and the only difference is how we
approach it.

>
>>
>> 2. "relies on his or her own experience and skills to design, without
>> any input from users". With doubtfull iPod case, it's solid to say
>> one cant can create a produce without user's feedback, with one
>> expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he visit outter
>> user)
>
> Everything I've read about the genesis of the iPod, including the definitive
> "The Perfect Thing" by Steve Levy backs up my assertion.
>
Maybe more, http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/10/71956?currentPage=2

"The basic hardware blueprint was bought from Silicon Valley startup
PortalPlayer, which was working on "reference designs" for several
different digital players, including a full-size unit for the living
room and a portable player about the size of a pack of cigarettes."
"Schiller's scroll wheel didn't come from the blue, however; scroll
wheels are pretty common in electronics, from scrolling mice to Palm
thumb wheels."

> People create products all the time without user feedback *into the initial
> design process.* I've done it many times, as have probably many of the
> people on this list.
>
>
>>
>> 3, with one expecptioin, himself is the user ( so you hardly find he
>> visit outter user), this is not because of genius but because he's the
>> user
>>
>> Genius is died ( or never there), thy user is long life.
>
> Designers with insight, skill, and experience will always be able to design
> beautiful or at least functional products that people want to use. In fact,
> one could argue that nearly everything we use has been designed this way.
> UCD didn't create the GUI, the car, email, Twitter, ATM machines, the Wii,
> the iPhone, dishwashers, washing machines, laptops, etc etc etc.
>
" Designers with insight, skill, and experience" is a general
statment, which no designer dare denying it.
But for making more sense ( for realworld design project), we shoud
know "What's the insight on and for?", be removing the flowers on the
cover, we may all find the user at the core of the insight, or what
else?
>From above analyze, it's not a difficult thing to say "that nearly
everything we use has been designed this way", but we should care
about where "this way" to and for.

Regards,
Jarod

>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Dan Saffer
> Principal, Kicker Studio
> http://www.kickerstudio.com
> http://www.odannyboy.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

25 Jan 2009 - 8:32pm
Alvin Woon
2007

>
> Don't forget the factor of fashion! Sometimes the market likes
> something that doesn't make a lot of sense but just seems new and
> fresh! These things seldom come out of research.
>

My 2 cents is that sometimes, what pleases the designerati does not
necessary coincides with the needs of real users. This is especially true
when we talk about web interface design.

For example, I've worked with designers who care more about having their
works displayed in showcase sites than users actually being able to complete
a task. These 2 goals are not mutually exclusive, of course.

- Alvin

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 9:20 PM, JimH <jim at hoekema.com> wrote:
> > This reminds me of a debate I used to have about instructional design.
> > My friend liked to contrast the "scientific" approach, based on
> > research, with the "intuitive" approach, based on... well, he would
> > said nothing but instinct. I would say that while the scientific
> > approach breaks everything down into individually verifiable tidbits,
> > the intuitive approach simply makes a great many - just as rational -
> > decisions at once.
> >
>
> I often do like following, do design research first, and keep in zen
> mind-set for enough time(this is a art, as we know, many designers
> have their own style at this phase ), and the design intuitively with
> team brain storming. The point is design research is not conflict with
> intuivitive approach, instead it's the precondition that enabling
> intuitive approach for solid and fruitfull design.
>
> Regards,
> Jarod
> --
> http://designforuse.blogspot.com/
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

25 Jan 2009 - 9:17pm
Andrew Boyd
2008

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:20 AM, JimH <jim at hoekema.com> wrote:

> Sure, some testing is better than no testing, and before release is
> better than after, but there are some critical limitations of testing
> to keep in mind:
> - Testing is not design. Testing reveals problems, but simply
> reversing the condition you tested is seldom the best design solution.
> Usually there are clusters of related issues, and to solve them well,
> it takes design, and creative design always involves some element of
> integrative "intuition" or, if you well, "genius."
> - You can't test everything - except in the case of the final product
> in the market (though even there success can be influenced by non-
> product factors). During development, you can choose the aspects you
> are most uncertain about and test them and improve them, but you never
> know - some aspect that you thought was a no-brainer could turn out to
> be the most problematic for users.
>

Jim,

I agree entirely - when I mentioned testing in my earlier response, it was
the "evaluate" part of a "research, design, evaluate" cycle - and just to
clarify, I mentioned it because the "ego-driven for the wrong reasons" folk
sometimes think that they live without both primary research and evaluation.
Not that such an approach will create an awful design in all cases, but I
believe that it certainly does in some.

Cheers, Andrew

--
---
Andrew Boyd
http://uxbookclub.org -- connect, read, discuss

31 Jan 2009 - 9:46am
dszuc
2005

Hi:

Thanks Jared and good reading -
http://www.uie.com/articles/five_design_decision_styles

"Project Context" plays a huge part as does company culture and
acceptance towards our magic formulas. Side note - Would like to
learn more about the Apple culture to understand how it really ticks.
My guess is there is some UCD happening at Apple (but we prefer to
believe its all coming from one or a few people only)

Sometimes the approach one takes "thinking through the design and
evaluating its merit" is just as important as the involvement of
users (at the right time). So it comes back to a CHOICE/TIMING to
involve users in order to inform your design assumptions. I am not
sure what you call this but I can make up a cool name? :)

Note -- We continue to do Usability Testing. We always use it as an
opportunity to learn more about -

* The project
* The business
* The users
* The Product Development Process
etc

Is it always the best approach? No. But it does allow us to learn
more.

rgds,
Dan

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37589

31 Jan 2009 - 6:34pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Jan 31, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Daniel Szuc wrote:

> Thanks Jared and good reading -
> http://www.uie.com/articles/five_design_decision_styles

Say no to Genius Design? Did you not read the article?

Money quote:

"Since the teams are working with different styles all the time, does
it matter? Our research says it does. The teams that produced the best
experiences knew these styles well and how to quickly switch between
them. They knew when they needed to go whole hog and pull out all the
stops for a User-Focused style project, while also knowing when it was
important to bang out a quick design, knowing the results would
essentially be unintended. Those teams had a rich toolbox of
techniques and a solid understanding on how and when to use them."

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

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

31 Jan 2009 - 8:03pm
Jarod Tang
2007

Then your point? or even better, give a example of genius design?

Regards,
Jarod

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk
<aherasimchuk at involutionstudios.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2009, at 6:46 AM, Daniel Szuc wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jared and good reading -
>> http://www.uie.com/articles/five_design_decision_styles
>
> Say no to Genius Design? Did you not read the article?
>
> Money quote:
>
> "Since the teams are working with different styles all the time, does it
> matter? Our research says it does. The teams that produced the best
> experiences knew these styles well and how to quickly switch between them.
> They knew when they needed to go whole hog and pull out all the stops for a
> User-Focused style project, while also knowing when it was important to bang
> out a quick design, knowing the results would essentially be unintended.
> Those teams had a rich toolbox of techniques and a solid understanding on
> how and when to use them."
>
> --
> Andrei Herasimchuk
>
> Principal, Involution Studios
> innovating the digital world
>
> e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
> c. +1 408 306 6422
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

31 Jan 2009 - 8:17pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jan 31, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Jarod Tang wrote:

> give a example of genius design?

One that I'm thinking of is a Boston area hospital IT team that was
building out electronic billing systems for the various practices
within the hospital. (The hospital was built out of independent
business practices that shared common services.)

The team did a great job researching many of their early projects,
but, after a while, starting seeing the same behavior patterns and
contexts repeat. Subsequent research was rarely yielding new insights,
so they started cutting back.

Eventually, many (not all) of the projects they were doing didn't
require any new research at all. They could confidently make smart
decisions based on their past experience and research.

I would consider these new projects to be in the "genius design"
decision style.

Does that help?

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: jmspool
UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com

31 Jan 2009 - 8:18pm
Jim Leftwich
2004

Andrei points to the key paragraph from Dan's book, and I concur
wholeheartedly with it. I've stated in forums before, including
dialogs with Dan, that he's pinned the dynamic. My problem was with
the label, not some of the underlying activities it was used for.

Also, I believe that there are designers and consulting teams whose
approach lies largely in that approach, and have developed, over a
long period of time, many processes, identified phenomenon and
solution patterns, and insights that allow them to work to great and
repeatable success.

There's a continuum in the field of successful designers and design
efforts (let's set aside what we might all agree would be
unsuccessful designers/designs) that switch between the methodologies
(as Dan described). And that continuum has to do with the ratio of
time spent in each of the methodologies, tools, or tactics. One
point I've been raising is that there are some practices that
"specialize" in rapid and generalized design/problem
solving/revolution/large-scale-architecture-with-small-scale-embodiment-template
type efforts. And because of the constraints that are often
associated with efforts and needs of those types (budget, time, scale
of necessary or optimized change, etc.), the approach and type of
practice I've characterized as R.E.D. better fits what's occurring,
than other labels.

Labels matter in that they need to work both for describing and, when
used, advocating. They need to be at least neutral and somewhat
descriptive.

In the end of course, the labels really don't matter at all. But
just as they can help to contextualize what's going on, they are
also capable of problematically leading valuable and deeper
understanding astray.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37589

31 Jan 2009 - 8:19pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jan 31, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:

> Andrei points to the key paragraph from Dan's book, and I concur
> wholeheartedly with it. I've stated in forums before, including
> dialogs with Dan, that he's pinned the dynamic. My problem was with
> the label, not some of the underlying activities it was used for.

For the record, I think those were *my* words Andrei pointed to.

Jared

31 Jan 2009 - 8:32pm
dszuc
2005

Hi Andrei:

I did read the article and Jared's point as you put in quotes makes
good sense to me.

Unless I missed your point?

rgds,
Dan

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37589

31 Jan 2009 - 8:38pm
Jim Leftwich
2004

Jared Spool writes: "For the record, I think those were my words
Andrei pointed to."

Okay, fair enough. Dan had said (perhaps repeating) the same thing
in an extended online dialog that we'd had back when his book came
out.

I do think that it's true that designers move back and forth. I
also think that some practices successfully emphasize different ones
more, hence my expansion on the least discussed and often maligned
approach.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37589

31 Jan 2009 - 8:39pm
Jarod Tang
2007

Hi Jared,

i fully agree with your version of "Genius Design", cause many
designers do it everyday. From your pointed case,
"
The team did a great job researching many of their early projects,
but, after a while, starting seeing the same behavior patterns and
contexts repeat. Subsequent research was rarely yielding new insights,
so they started cutting back.
"
And more important, you already said, " Eventually, many (not all) of
the projects they were doing didn't require any new research at all."

All you said means, "Genius Design" is the design that "based on their
past experience and research", the core of the design is "seeing ...
behavior patterns and contexts repeat" which is key of current
understanding of interaction/experience design. They designer do hold
insight on the user, whether they get it from past experience or from
fresh design research, this makes not difference, instead, we call
them the expert of some domain as discussed in another thread.

Maybe you can come with a better name for this sub style design, like
"domain expert enabled design" instead of "Genius design", :)

Regards,
Jarod

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Jarod Tang wrote:
>
>> give a example of genius design?
>
> One that I'm thinking of is a Boston area hospital IT team that was building
> out electronic billing systems for the various practices within the
> hospital. (The hospital was built out of independent business practices that
> shared common services.)
>
> The team did a great job researching many of their early projects, but,
> after a while, starting seeing the same behavior patterns and contexts
> repeat. Subsequent research was rarely yielding new insights, so they
> started cutting back.
>
> Eventually, many (not all) of the projects they were doing didn't require
> any new research at all. They could confidently make smart decisions based
> on their past experience and research.
>
> I would consider these new projects to be in the "genius design" decision
> style.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Jared
>
> Jared M. Spool
> User Interface Engineering
> 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
> e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
> http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: jmspool
> UIE Web App Summit, 4/19-4/22: http://webappsummit.com
>

--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

31 Jan 2009 - 8:43pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jan 31, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Jarod Tang wrote:

> Maybe you can come with a better name for this sub style design, like
> "domain expert enabled design" instead of "Genius design", :)

Pass.

Jared

31 Jan 2009 - 8:54pm
Jarod Tang
2007

:)
So, it's fall into common sense for design
1. understand thy user (from past experience or fresh by design research)
2. design solution generation
...

Regards,
Jarod

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Jared Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Jarod Tang wrote:
>
>> Maybe you can come with a better name for this sub style design, like
>> "domain expert enabled design" instead of "Genius design", :)
>
> Pass.
>
> Jared
>
>

--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

31 Jan 2009 - 8:58pm
Jim Leftwich
2004

Better alternative labels and much deeper explanations will have to
emerge from practitioners themselves.

Talking about design will never be the same as doing it and having
done it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37589

31 Jan 2009 - 9:01pm
Jarod Tang
2007

Yup.

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Jim Leftwich <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
> Better alternative labels and much deeper explanations will have to
> emerge from practitioners themselves.
>
> Talking about design will never be the same as doing it and having
> done it.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=37589
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

2 Feb 2009 - 11:43am
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Jan 31, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Daniel Szuc wrote:

> Hi Andrei:
>
> I did read the article and Jared's point as you put in quotes makes
> good sense to me.
>
> Unless I missed your point?

I must have missed something. My apologies for the remark.

I couldn't find the start of the thread, and as such, thought you were
misinterpreting Jared's article. My Apple Mail was simply splitting
the thread however, and I found my error. Again, my mistake.

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

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

Syndicate content Get the feed