[IxDA Discuss] Rationale for *not* using UCD

[Jared M. Spool]

On Feb 4, 2007, at 9:08 PM, Phillip Hunter wrote:

>> "There is no correlation between effort/resources spent on UCD/UED  
>> and the
> usability of the results."
>
>> "...there may be other things that produce improvement and that  
>> UCD may be
> placebic."
>
> This follow-up is a strong statement.  It further implies to me  
> that most
> design research and some design tasks are always a waste of time.  I
> certainly have seen some research and tasks that are.  And I have  
> certainly
> seen them done by people that turn the research and tasks into  
> wastes of
> time, but are you saying that some or most of them are?
>
> Or, by analogizing with the stone soup story, are you saying you see a
> catalytic link between design methods and the subsequent actions of  
> the
> teams involved that in turn lead to a better result?  If so, why  
> point to
> the catalyst as having no correlation to the result?
>
> But if the former is your point, and we are not blind squirrels,  
> then what
> tasks do reliably, correlatably, make a difference?
>
> I apologize for dragging this out, but as someone who passionately  
> believes
> that the right design process performed by the right people in the  
> right way
> makes a difference that can and needs to be measured, I want to  
> understand
> what seems to be a different view.

I didn't say "most design research and some design tasks are always a  
waste of time."

I said there was no correlation.

Do no confuse "no correlation" with a "negative correlation."

No correlation means that sometimes we see positive result, but some  
times we don't. It also means we can't predict when we will see a  
positive result.

I was also very specific in referring to UCD, which has specific  
meaning. There are alternative design research methods and design  
approaches that aren't generally considered UCD. I wouldn't bundle  
them into this statement.

My reference to the Stone Soup folk tale is to suggest that there may  
be benefits to our involvement in projects that extend beyond the  
specific methods (the "stone") themselves. Maybe there are things  
independent of our actions which are actually the catalysts, as you  
put it.

We may see no correlation because sometimes the catalyst doesn't have  
any effect. If we don't really know what causes usable designs, then  
we can't explain why what we do sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

The point of this is we don't know what the "right design process"  
is, who the "right people" are, or what the "right way" should be.  
Until we do, your desire to have "the right design process performed  
by the right people in the right way" will probably not manifest  
success in any repeatable, manageable way.

This is why we need more research and not be so quick to condemn  
those who aren't doing things "the right way." They may actually be  
getting better results on average than we do.

Jared