[IxDA Discuss] Apparently, IxD is not obscure enough

[Andrei Herasimchuk]

On Aug 24, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:

> From the harsh reaction, I'm guessing you have someone on your team  
> who's not doing his job and you've assumed I'm suffering from the  
> same issue. I assure you, this is not the case here. It's also  
> interesting that you'd assume such a thing based on the tiny amount  
> of information I provided in my first post. It's simply not enough  
> to go on to make such a leap.

Wasn't trying to make a logical leap, just riffing off the exact  
words you wrote. (You did say "recommendations.") As I'm sure most  
will tell you who know me, I just tend to use overly direct language  
that in my head is very matter fact (deadpan if you will) but tends  
to come off to others as being harsh. Sometimes excessively harsh. So  
my apologies if it comes off harsh.

> These debates so far have been about the structure of an app I'm  
> designing. Specifically, the client argued that they didn't want a  
> product page to be part of their catalog system. They wanted to  
> send users straight from a search result set to a reader type app  
> for reading the digital resources offered by the system. My  
> argument was that, by excluding a product details page, they were  
> missing a core opportunity to A) reveal more info about the  
> product, B) suggest other, related products, thereby encouraging  
> further usage of the system, and C) scale their offering to include  
> the ability to rate and review the products. They were also  
> breaking a user expectation that clicking a search result would  
> take them to a new page about that result.

Did you show them a functioning prototype during this debate that  
exemplified your point in the way you think it should be designed?

> What I was trying to communicate was that the accessibility expert  
> didn't have to do any of this. She simply states a few facts and  
> calls it a day. No arguments there. Just thought it was humorous,  
> hence the ";)" at the end of my post.

Not sure what to tell you then. But off the humorous slant you made,  
you also stated something that was a bit far fetched, don't you  
think? (That IxD is not obscure enough.) To the point that others  
responded to it seriously.

> Incidentally, all an interaction designer can do most of the time,  
> really, is make recommendations (whether in words or in prototypes  
> or something else). IxDs rarely have authoritative power. In the  
> end, the inmates are still running most asylums. This is especially  
> true when you are a vendor rather than part of an in-house software  
> or ENG team.

Here's where I'l be direct again, sorry. it's just my nature.

I hear this defeatist attitude all of the time. At least in my  
opinion, it's a defeatist attitude. I find it not very worthwhile. I  
also think it's not a strong way to approach the job. I've done both  
in-house deign work and design work as a vendor and service provider.  
I understand both contexts pretty well now and the issues are largely  
the same. In fact, I find EASIER to get things done as a vendor than  
as in-house. However, what is the same is that earning respect and  
having people give you the responsibility as a designer to do the job  
requires a lot of experience on the part of the designer and the  
ability by the designer to make others know that they are in good  
hands by doing so. That and building prototypes makes the job a  
thousand times more enjoyable across the board.

> Also, anyone can argue about anything they want, and people argue  
> about functioning prototypes *all the time*. Without debate like  
> this, what drives us to become better designers?

They can argue all they want, but the other great part about  
functioning prototypes is that you can put users in front of them and  
also get their feedback on what works. So people can argue all they  
want, but often times it's hard to argue with stuff that works.

> If I worked where you work, I'd quit. It's easy to be right all the  
> time if no one makes you justify and validate your ideas, and I  
> don't want to be right all the time. Being wrong makes me better.

Building a prototype is the ultimate expression of having to justify  
and validate one's ideas, because after you've done all that great  
work drawing up a mockup or whatnot, you actually have to see if you  
like it for real in day to day use by actually building it. Building  
a prototype is not about being right all the time. In fact, I prefer  
to find out where I've failed and need to rethink my approach at the  
prototype level than having engineers build stuff only to find out  
after they've built it where I was wrong.

-- 
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

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