- From: Eric Miller <eric@squishymedia.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:54:28 -0700
- To: Roberto García <rogargon@gmail.com>, <public-semweb-ui@w3.org>
Hi all, Just a quick observation here. I'm a practitioner, not a researcher, so I can't really speak to the lit, but I use UCD on a daily basis. And speaking as a designer I've found that user involvement provides an invaluable starting point for the design process but shouldn't solely govern evaluation processes. Users can be good at articulating their needs, but aren't as good at articulating specific solutions to their needs; often because their viewpoint is reflexively restricted to their personal contexts and past experiences. Their involvement isn't as useful to the practicing designer when the users don't have experience with that specific class of application or task. Like, say, the Semantic Web. I saw that this issue was noted under "Methodology Issues" on the SWUIWiki, incidentally. And the "Pathetic Fallacy of RDF" piece touches on this too. So I'd suggest that processes like UCD (as formally articulated and implemented, and driven by actual people and/or personas) are well-suited for evolutionary refinement of existing classes of applications with a pre-existing critical mass of user awareness and understanding. But to create effective user interfaces for new classes might require a less structured and more creative approach. (My example here would be Apple's successful new product design process that is decidedly not UCD-driven in the traditional end-user sense; it's driven by Steve Jobs' benevolent dictatorship of design.) Another interesting thread along these lines would be the "genius design" v. UCD discussion a few months back on IxDA. Additionally, there might be a case made for adapting SW technologies to fit a more coherent interaction metaphor, rather than struggling to bolt a UI onto a fully-baked technical implementation. Again, this audience would certainly know more about the HCI lit than I would, but I'd simply offer this thought. To paraphrase a great one-liner, "Writing about design is like dancing about architecture." There's a subjective X factor in design that defies quantitative processes and analysis. And I'm willing to speculate that breakthroughs in SWUI design would be most likely to spring from creative processes unencumbered by constraining mechanisms such as formal UCD processes and methodologies. There will be more failures; but there's the chance for something truly innovative and successful to emerge. Eric On 5/31/07 1:26 PM, "Roberto García" <rogargon@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, Before adding the following text to the "How To" section of > the SWUIWiki, I would appreciate your comments about the following description > of User Centred Design (UCD). Do you think it > is appropriate? -- > User-Centred Design The methodology for developing > usable and accessible applications is called User-Centred Design (UCD). It is > based on an iterative development process based on a detailed study of the > users' needs, the tasks they carry on in order to meet them and the context in > which they are performed (Norman 1986). There are many UCD > development processes proposals, but all of them provide a mix of > software engineering plus usability and accessibility engineering tasks. > One particular proposal, which combines both disciplines in a neat way thus > facilitating its adoption, is the usability and accessibility
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 23:42:22 UTC