[IxDA Discuss] Alan Cooper on Software Design: Code=Design?

[Katie Albers]

As far as I can tell, you're comfortable with Cooper's division of 
engineers -- although you're accustomed to different terminology...so 
let's pass over that.

It seems that you believe that there once was a tendency for builders 
to start building before the underlying work of the designer was in 
place, but that that no longer happens in today's good companies. All 
I can really say to that is "wow! Have you ever been lucky!"

First of all, keep in mind that for many/most of us, our 
understanding of the professional SW world is skewed by the simple 
fact that we work with and for companies that are smart enough to 
hire us. Thus, they implicitly acknowledge the existence and 
importance of IxD.

But it is still very much the case that the work of interaction 
design gets relegated to the hands of the "builders" much of the 
time, in my experience. Time constraints, resource constraints, 
failure to understand that just because the engineer *can* work out a 
way to get from point A to point B does not mean it will be a good 
way...All these things and so many more frequently mean that the 
"design" part just doesn't get done except by default.

On the whole, I think the problem described by Cooper remains...and 
has remained through many revisions and definitions of who works on 
SW teams and what they do and how they do it. System Analysts -- to 
my mind -- are a primary example of the obduracy of the engineering 
problem. Many moons ago SAs were the individuals trusted with working 
out the people-facing side of an app. Very few of them could code and 
they weren't generally encouraged to learn how. Now coding is a 
standard requirement for Systems Analysts and we are back to trying 
to figure out where to locate the underlying design functions for SW.

Some companies are good at separating and integrating the parts of 
the process and others aren't. Interestingly, I've always found 
start-ups to be better at it than existing and larger companies.

Katie



At 2:03 PM -0400 10/30/07, Rich Rogan wrote:
>In Coopers article he seems to "Jump the Shark", (makes assumptions that
>have little relevance to most companies I've worked for), when he writes:
>
>"Of course you can see how both of these problems, (engineers don't know
>how/can't follow design), would stem from the same root: if a programmer has
>never learned to follow a written design, then he would structure his daily
>work to do without. He would attempt to do the necessary design himself,
>concurrent with the construction effort. *And that is exactly what
>programmers at all levels and in all sub-disciplines of computer programming
>do*: *they design code at the same time as they build it.* If we could
>untangle these two parts of the programming job, we could begin to defeat
>the apocalyptic horsemen."
>
>He then goes on to identify two types of engineers which I have always heard
>called "Engineers", (Cooper calls them "builders") and "Architects", (Cooper
>calls them "designers").
>
>Every place I've worked at/heard of, that was a professional/respectable
>software co., not in ultra start up mode, did upfront design, besides
>"Architectural Software" design. It seems he is implying that "Interaction
>Design" as a profession is some new concept, which few software
>engineers/projects have heard of or incorporate.
>
>This seems to be very old news, and not really relevant in todays market, or
>do I just work for ultra bleeding edge organizations when it comes to
>process? I like Alan's premise of promoting our discipline, but he seems to
>be looking from the past, (very far past in SW terms - 10 yrs back or so).
>
>Did anyone else get this from the article?

-- 

----------------
Katie Albers
katie at firstthought.com