[IxDA Discuss] Rationale for *not* using UCD

[Phillip Hunter]

Jared,

That seems a bit simplistic relative to the quality of the resources, the
methods used, the quality of the effort, the information available, etc.  If
your view is the case, why should the majority of us design?  You seem to be
indicating that design success results from either singular talent or
blind-squirrel luck.  The rest of us flail, hoping we're the next squirrel.

If I apply your reasoning to, say, sports, then only talent or freak
occurrences correlate to success.  No amount of time spent practicing,
observing, planning, or training predicts it.  Yet every decent kid league
coach knows that is untrue.  While certainly not every dedicated athlete
reaches a pinnacle of their sport, and certainly some gifted athletes have
to practice, observe, plan, and train less, there is a strong correlation
between these activities and significant success, given a base level of
talent/aptitude.

I believe that to be true for interaction design.  I believe that as we grow
the study and practice, tangible and measurable and purposeful inputs will
begin to be clearly correlated to successful outputs.  We will find our own
set of "fundamentals" to build on.  Sure, inspiration and unique
perspectives and riding fad-waves will still produce effects that have us
shaking our heads, but there will be a day where consistent application of
known concepts by skilled professionals will yield dependable results.  And
it won't come down to 100 hours = 2.5% increase in user satisfaction.  And I
argue that almost nothing does.

ph

-----Original Message-----
From: Jared M. Spool [mailto:jspool at uie.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 5:22 PM
To: phillip at speechcycle.com
Cc: 'discuss Discuss'
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Rationale for *not* using UCD


On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:13 AM, Phillip Hunter wrote:

> Is it not a little more accurate to say that quantifying the  
> correlation is
> difficult?  Certainly there is correlation.

Quantifying the correlation is easy. You measure the amount of  
resources consumed by UCD. You measure the relative usability,  
consumer satisfaction, or customer engagement (your pick -- doesn't  
matter for the measures) of the resulting products. You plot the chart.

What you get is a scattergram with no clear correlative line. (The  
correlative line would be points clustering on the line itself,  
showing the more spent on UCD, the more the output measures increase.)

Jared