— 6 August 2003 —

Response to a Post on experiencedesign

As seems human nature, people get caught up on the name of something and not the real problem. Tog’s query proves that. But I also see it below. To me “user” implies a person who wants to do something. I have to come up with a way to help them do it effectively, efficiently, and with satisfaction. Which is why, in UCD, there is so much emphasis on the requirements analysis. Find out who they are, what they want. Requirements analysis comes first. So I would say that those who actually have the opportunity to use UCD are not jumping to the “thing” first.

Part of what I just said speaks back to the underlying, and not well presented idea that Tog is displaying: Are we of the acrimoniously acronymed titles allowed to practice UCD? I am, completely. I am also lucky. If there is such a problem with a feeling of relevance/influence, start showing the people you work for the success that UCD came bring.

This constant freaking out about titles is akin to a SME, or business client who, when asked what they want to accomplish on the project (scope), say, “We want a left nav and we need to use Arial to support our brand.” Name it when you are done building it.

How about actually defining the need for change first? How about finding out how many of us there are, and if we really feel disenfranchised?

~~~
Paula wrote:
The point is that too many are unwilling to admit the huge contextual implications of the term User. It implies the use of something. When that becomes your focus, you’ve immediately failed.

Individuals are focused on ‘doing’ something. In that endeavor, they often have to rely on ‘things’ to assist them. To go first to the ‘things’ (or have it as a central theme when you approach the ‘needs of the individual’) immediately introduces bias to the possibilities.

Respond Eloquently Below

April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002
Snook Approved!