[IxDA Discuss] ACD (was ...companies actually using UCD)

[Robert Hoekman, Jr.]

> Norman implies that design is headed towards becoming too user
> centered - or as I interpret his meaning, a user designed world. A
> world without enough of the designer's input, and I think that is an
> exaggeration.


This is definitely open to interpretation. This isn't what I took from it at
all. He says "If it is so critical to understand the particular users of a
product, then what happens when a product is designed to be used by almost
anyone in the world? There are many designs that do work well for everyone.
This is paradoxical, and it is this very paradox that led me to re-examine
common dogma."

>From where I sit, he's saying it's more valuable in many cases to design for
the activity so that the resulting design is abstracted from a niche
audience and instead opens itself up to work for many type of people.

An extreme example of activity driven design, as Norman defines it
> might be a cell phone that learns how to short cut those most
> frequently used features with navigation to fit the users
> explorations.


This isn't extreme at all. It's not even that difficult to build. It's sad,
in fact, that it doesn't happen more often.

Also contrary to your point is the fact that this same solution is very
likely to be produced through UCD. Designing for a persona could result in
the exact same idea quite easily.

Regarding apple, I have asked no less that 40 Apple employees, both
> at MacWorld in the last two years and in phone conversations and by
> reading every article I can find. I always get the same retort. Our
> innovation system, process and personnel are one person, Steve Jobs.
> It comes so "word-for-word" exact that I suspect that it is the PR
> machine at work (not sure that ego is at play here or just a very
> shrewd strategy - as we tend to love/hate icons and heros) and not
> really any insight into the Apple process. I suspect that Steve's
> dominance is a partial truth - but we all know that Jonathon Ives is
> a major player as well. A shoot from the hip approach to innovation
> can and has certainly hit some home runs, but I can't imagine it is a
> successful formula for other companies, or good for Apple in the long
> run.
>

If design was always about *innovation*, then heck yeah, this would be
tough, and not very good for users either, who would be constantly battling
a learning curve to become familiar with the new innovations. Usually,
design is about incremental improvement. OS X was a major leap, but it
hasn't changed at its core since then. It's the small stuff that keeps it
moving forward. Innovation is expensive, but small ideas are a dime a dozen.

-r-