Post by Erik Stolterman [1 favorite]

Dear list,

if you are interested in getting to know some of the finest coming Master graduates in HCI and Interaction Design, then this event is for you!!

*** The Indiana University School of Informatics is hosting CONNECT 09 on January 22 & 23 for the HCI Design program.

The goal of this event is for user experience design managers and team members to experience HCI Design Grad students and faculty; how they think, create, design, etc. It may also be a key 'relational inroad' for recruiting interns and full-time employees from our program. The nature of the event is informal, discussion-based, and relational.

All the details and registration information is available at: www.hcidconnect.com

If you have questions, you may contact Jeremy Podany, Director of Informatics Career Services, at 812-856-1094, or jpodany at indiana.edu

Best Erik •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Erik Stolterman Professor of Informatics • Director of HCI/design School of Informatics • Indiana University

web: http://hcid.informatics.indiana.edu/eriksite/ blog: http://transground.blogspot.com/

Post by Daniel Szuc [1 favorite]

Hi Linda:

Your question = "What makes a "good" UX team? Have you been part of a "great" UX design department? How would you go about building an "excellent" UXD team? "

Some thoughts on what makes a good UX team:

1. Can communicate clearly

2. Is able to teach methods and empower those outside of the UX team to find insights to improve UX (so does not keep UX all to themselves) See next point.

3. Can sell UX organizationally - http://www.uxmatters.com/MT/archives/000335.php

4. Can help the business improve products and services and pick the right projects to work on (rather than just talk about design or UX for its own sake)

5. Can prove their value - http://www.apogeehk.com/articles/Value.html

6. Has a simple set of tools and knows when to use them at the right time to find the right answers (but does not get caught up in the tool itself) - See: "Choosing the Right Usability Technique (Getting the Answers You Need)" - http://www.wqusability.com/publications.html#workshops and http://www.sitepoint.com/kits/usability1/

7. Can walkthrough results and bridge research into design - http://uxmatters.com/MT/archives/000199.php

8. Can build relationships - http://www.apogeehk.com/articles/Six_techniques_for_advocating_design_in_your_organization.html

9. Has a strong manager who can filter work opportunities, advocate for UX organizationally and know how to manage a team with varied skill sets

10. Fill in your own :)

rgds, Dan

Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=35869

Post by Andy Polaine [1 favorite]

Hi folks,

Quick plug for a new site I've launched called The Designers Review of Books http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com

Although there are not yet any reviews on interaction design you can be sure I will be covering that area quite a bit, given that it's my own discipline. I'm going to be (p)reviewing Dan Saffer's Designing Gestural Interfaces very soon too (thanks Dan!) to coincide with an interview with him on Core77.

So, here are two questions to you all:

1. If you had to choose one book that has had a big impact on you creatively or career-wise, what is it and why?

2. What would be your top 2 interaction design (in the broadest sense - usability, experience, etc., etc.) must have books ?

I'll probably only be able to keep it going if it gets a decent of traffic so, you know, subscribe, tell your friends, blog it, tweet it, delicious it and all that.

(And before you ask me about the apostrophe, take a look at the latest post).

Best,

Andy

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Andy Polaine

Research | Writing | Strategy Interaction Concept Design Education Futures

Twitter: apolaine Skype: apolaine

http://playpen.polaine.com http://www.designersreviewofbooks.com http://www.omnium.net.au http://www.antirom.com

Post by Itamar Medeiros [1 favorite]

Hi, there! I just wanted to let you know we'll be having our IxDA Face-to-Face meeting on TUESDAY, November 25th, 7:30PM (please confirm your presence at http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform? key=py-EVrhPEvzqyhar-A0XvZQ)

On that occasion, we'll be having Michael Liu -- Human Factors Engineer at HP -- and Douglas Wang -- Product Design Manager at Autodesk -- talk about their experience of using RAPID PROTOTYPING as a tool for concept validation.

WHEN: November 25th 2008, 7:30PM - 9:00PM

WHERE: Building 6, #690 Bi Bo Road, Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park, Shanghai, P.R.China 上海浦东新区碧波路690路张江微电子港6号楼 (5 minutes walk from地铁2号线张江高科站)

[image: cid:710C6C19-43CD-4A4B-98EF-119D5CBCC9C7]

[image: cid:550A7BE0-250E-4C5C-8EAB-41CA0186152E] next part A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 149305 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.interactiondesigners.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20081117/96fac22d/attachment.png
> next part A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 200387 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.interactiondesigners.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20081117/96fac22d/attachment-0001.png
>

Post by Livia Labate [1 favorite]

> While our work may not be as life and death as a surgical procedure, I
> think we still want to know what we're doing. We need to have a language
> that adequately describes our tools, techniques, and processes. That's
> why I think defining these things are important.

Though our risks may not be life threatening, they are certainly real risks and likely financial risks (which can have direct impact on our employment status). Just wanted to point this out in case anyone thinks their job is less important because they don't get to kill someone if they screw up or don't care what their design approach is...

> In the previous discussion of ACD versus UCD on this list, the focus has
> been defined simply: Someone practicing ACD focuses on the activities of
> the design, where someone practicing UCD focuses on the users.

First, the name of these two approaches doesn't help much in clarifying their application. Because ADC doesn't have user in the name doesn't mean it doesn't consider the user at all; it just focuses on the activities of a user, rather than their ultimate goals and needs (which is what UCD preaches). But I'm not going to get into that.

ACD focuses on the activities of users, UCD focuses on goals and preferences of users. ACD focuses on user activities looking at them (and talking about them) from the system perspective (mostly - there are no absolutes); UCD looks at (and talks about) activities from the user perspective (mostly - there are no absolutes). I had to type and read this 5 times to make sure this made sense, but I think I am conveying the difference as I see it.

Dan Saffer differentiates ACS and UCS in his Designing for Interaction book very similarly/succinctly. His best point is that the PURPOSE of an activity is not necessarily a user goal, meaning looking at a design problem with a user goal in mind may be too esoteric and not necessarily helpful (which is the pro argument for ACD).

I agree with that. He also says sometimes user goals and purpose of activity can be the same. I also agree with that. To me these are determining factors in terms of choosing a design approach.

How far removed from the ultimate user goal/ambition is the step/thing I need to design? The more layers of abstraction between the atomic tasks or set of tasks that represent an activity and the end goal for the user, more helpful a UCD approach. The less abstract/more direct, more helpful ACD.

<-- ACD usefulness grows focus on ACTIVITY focus on USER GOALS UCD usefulness grows --
>

> If one asserts that UCD is a collection of activities that go beyond
> ACD, looking at the goals, needs, and context of the user, beyond just
> that of the underlying activities, then I would say that ACD is...
> ... just a lazy man's UCD.

I think I agree with that statement.

> 0) Unintended Design:
> 1) Self Design:
> 2) Genius Design:
> 3) Activity-Centered Design (ACD):
> 4) User-Centered Design (UCD):

0
> 1
> 2
> 3
> 4 = Time spent learning about user.

As you said, I don't think we can/could map success to this progression (even knowing all approaches have successes). I.E: in genius design, past experience may be a key success factor.

I do think that the complexity of the system (not sure that's the best way to talk about it but...), meaning the 'distance' between the atomic tasks a user has to perform and the ultimate goal they are trying to accomplish, can help determine which is the best approach (and by best I meant the most likely to be successful). In trying to predict what approach would be most successful for a given situation in order to tell a team how to tackle a project, I'd start by taking a pass at trying to outline user end goals.

For example: Trying to design a cappuccino maker. Goal: Drink coffee with x characteristics. It's a good, concrete, an fairly narrow *goal* that is not far removed from the *activity* of making coffee itself. I'd say, ACD would have better odds.

For example: Trying to design a way for people to feel confident about their financial choices. It's a good, concrete, and fairly broad *goal* that is possibly very removed from the *activities* involved in making whatever financial choices are available to them. I'd say, UCD would have better odds.

(An additional point: defining the problem you are trying to address is so key in determining the design approach, that because many start with fuzzy and unclear projects, they default to UCD because certain UCD methods are really good at clarifying things and help frame the problem you are trying to resolve).

> My argument was that
> UCD isn't the goal for teams -- instead, having a rich toolbox filled
> with techniques and tricks (that the team knows when and how to use)
> should be the goal.

In my head, being able to choose the approach, ACD or UCD, is part of the idea of having a toolbox. If you start out as an ACD or UCD advocate in the first place, you are already discarding the notion that there are other things in the ubber-toolbox (and other ways to think about a problem) that may better serve you.

So, (and I think we are in agreement), yes, UCD can be perceived as a poorly executed dogmatic approach (and so can any other approach), if it turns out it's not what you needed.

> So, that's where I'm at with regard to ACD. It's a modern-day approach
> to task analysis and design. It has its place, but isn't the only
> solution. It can produce success when the design team only needs to
> consider the underlying activities.

"design team only needs to consider the underlying activities" which I read as "the problem space is pretty much defined and the atomic tasks a user has to perform are not that far removed from a successful outcome.

To your point, how do you get to that? UCD *generally* offers good methods for that, which is why I think many default to UCD.

Hope that made some sense...

PS: Where do you put Systems Design in your list Jared?

Post by Jared Spool [1 favorite]

So, I've spent much of the last month thinking about what Activity- Centered Design (or ACD) might be and where it fits into other design approaches. This long-winded email is an attempt to get these thoughts out.

Before I start, the last time we went around on this, there was a sentiment of "Who cares what we call it? My clients/co-workers don't care what it is, as long as I produce great designs. Let's just agree that what we do is a good thing, whether we label it ACD or UCD or whatever."

While I agree that the outside world (that being the people who are not UX professionals) don't necessarily need to know whether something is called ACD or UCD, I think it's important that we're clear on what each approach is and how it differs.

When most of go to a doctor with a serious ailment (say something nasty like pancreatic cancer), we just want to know that the surgical option our doctor chooses will work. We don't care whether it's a Total Pancreatectomy, a Distal Pancreatectomy, or a Whipple Procedure. If it makes the cancer go away and returns us to normal health, we're happy with whatever it was.

However, I think we'd really want the surgical team to know which one it was. The preparation, tools, anesthesia requirements, pre-op prep, and post-op care all depend on the nature of the procedure. If the entire team of doctors, technicians, and nurses are not on board with exactly what procedure is happening, someone will do the wrong thing and a life can be put in at risk. (Not 'a life'. Our life!)

While our work may not be as life and death as a surgical procedure, I think we still want to know what we're doing. We need to have a language that adequately describes our tools, techniques, and processes. That's why I think defining these things are important.

This is why I dislike the current term-of-art User-Centered Design (or UCD). I'm betting that if you ask 10 UX professionals to define UCD in depth (going beyond "designing with users in mind"), you'll get 15 different definitions. (This is something I've put on UIE's research agenda to actually do, but we haven't gotten there yet. I'd really like to see what happens.) There is no clear field-wide understanding of what UCD is, which makes it very hard for us to compare notes and discuss possible alternatives, like ACD.

In the previous discussion of ACD versus UCD on this list, the focus has been defined simply: Someone practicing ACD focuses on the activities of the design, where someone practicing UCD focuses on the users. Some have said that ACD minimizes the need of doing personas (a 'user-centered' activity) and just looks at the underlying activities that are obvious to the design result. For example, if designing a photo sharing site, one doesn't need to talk about whether the user is college age or prefers taking pictures of flowers, as someone might be inclined to fill out in the persona description. Instead, the activities are uploading pictures, sharing pictures, downloading various sizes, putting together a collection, etc. Look no further than the activities and you'll have a full list of items to put on your design plate.

At least, that's my understanding of ACD. I'm sure someone will point out that I've gotten it all wrong, but that's where I'm starting from here. (I look forward to the correction.)

So, given all this, here's where I think this ACD thing fits in:

If one asserts that UCD is a collection of activities that go beyond ACD, looking at the goals, needs, and context of the user, beyond just that of the underlying activities, then I would say that ACD is...

... just a lazy man's UCD.

Now, I'm hoping that all the ACD advocates out there won't take this the wrong way. Being lazy is pretty important. All the really good innovations in our lives have come from a dedication to laziness. I consider laziness, along with impatience and stubbornness, to be critical traits of an innovation leader. So, I applaud anyone who is creatively lazy, looking for ways reduce effort while producing more.

To this end, you can put UCD and ACD in a scale of design approaches, which starts with:

0) Unintended Design: The design that results from teams that don't pay any attention to design. This is the true rubber-band-and-spit approach to creating things. Everything ends up with a design, but not every design is intentional. Some very lucky teams end up with successful unintended design, but the odds are against this.

1) Self Design: The design that results from teams that design purely for themselves. (This happens more with single-person teams than multiple-person teams.) This design approach has better odds of success than Unintended Design, but not by much (unless the designer is the only user, such as when a bachelor arranges the contents in their kitchen cabinets). This design approach is only informed by the team members own use of the design.

2) Genius Design: The design that results from teams that use their experience at creating designs for others, without doing research. This starts with Self Design, but extends to role playing and consideration of users who are not quite like themselves. This design approach is informed by previous experience the design team has with similar work. (For example, a team that creates shopping cart systems for many clients can reduce their research efforts with each subsequent implementation, assuming the systems are pretty much the same each time. Eventually, they could create very successful without further research, since they'd basically "seen it all".)

3) Activity-Centered Design (ACD): The design that results from teams that only research the activities. Because research is part of the design process, it extends beyond Genius Design (which solely is based on the team's experience). This is necessary when the activities are new or foreign to the team. (For example, a team developing an application for consolidating personal finances when they've never thought about personal finances in any of their previous projects.) Activity-based research techniques, such as workflow diagrams and task- based usability tests would come in very handy to help inform the teams using this approach.

4) User-Centered Design (UCD): The design that results from teams that look beyond just the activities, to the goals, needs, and contexts of the users. Because usage is all about activity, this approach needs to have the activity at its core. (Early UCD definitions always included an essential "task analysis" phase -- something that's disappeared from the lexicon, but is still essential to this design. Task analysis is, as far as I can tell, research about activities, and thus the core research component of ACD.) This design approach is informed by techniques such as field research (ethnographic techniques) and persona creation, which help the team to see contextual items and goals.

All of these approaches are viable approaches and there are documented successes for each (think 37Signals for Self Design and Apple for Genius Design). However, since bad design is only retrospective (nobody who produced a bad design thought they were doing so at the time -- they only discovered it after the fact), the approaches are really about increasing the probabilities of a successful design. In each case, we're really talking about the how the experience of the design team plays against the information needed for a successful design. Teams that walk around with most of the information already can get away with less new research.

This discussion started because people reacted to my "It's time we consider retiring UCD" comment in my IA Summit Keynote [1]. There I was referring to the dogmatic approach that too many UX professionals take when they claim that if you actively practice Self Design or Genius Design without research user needs, you're not doing UCD. (They are right, but they make it sound like a bad thing.) My argument was that UCD isn't the goal for teams -- instead, having a rich toolbox filled with techniques and tricks (that the team knows when and how to use) should be the goal.

In my mind, the advocates of ACD are really reacting to a poorly executed dogmatic approach to UCD. When they say, "we don't need personas because who cares if our user is a high school student considering an ivy league school", they are really reacting to poorly constructed personas. [2] In a well-constructed persona description, the team can tie every sentence to the design decisions behind it. If they have a sentence about the student's college choices, there had better be a design decision behind it.

(Recently, I had a client show me their persona descriptions that talked about the car the family had and the family dog. My first inclination was to suggest they take this information out. However, their project was a home-improvement information site and providing filters for pet-friendly improvement projects and easy-to-bring-home materials was an obvious no-brainer out of this simple info.)

So, when I say the ACD advocates are being lazy, what I mean is they are looking to avoid many of the dogmatic approaches that UCD advocates push in their agendas. And that I'm totally in agreement.

However, it's important we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Research that tells us about the user's goals, their needs, and their context, beyond those embodied completely in the base activity can be important for many designs. Two people may use the same functions, but from completely different contexts and for completely different goals. The inputs, flows, and outputs might need to vary dramatically or the design may need to be expanded to help both users, even though the base activity is identical.

(My canonical example for this is the workstation used by a Pediatric ICU nurse. While the base activity, say ordering a CBC lab, is uniform, the goals -- the criticality of the infant's condition -- and the context -- whether the nurse is long-time experienced in the ICU or doing a short rotation -- can influence the design results dramatically. In this instance, ACD will likely produce an inferior design to UCD, as I've defined them above.)

So, that's where I'm at with regard to ACD. It's a modern-day approach to task analysis and design. It has its place, but isn't the only solution. It can produce success when the design team only needs to consider the underlying activities.

Unfortunately, I think they only way to guarantee success is to do UCD- class activities to determine that goals, needs, and context aren't going to change the design outcome. That makes it risky.

Hope this helps,

Jared

[1] IA Summit 2008 Keynote: Journey to the Center of Design http://tinyurl.com/5kasbm (Listen to the audio or the slides won't make sense.)

[2] Crappy vs. Robust Personas: http://tinyurl.com/2hpxzr

Jared M. Spool User Interface Engineering 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561 http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks Twitter: jmspool

Post by Jeff Howard [1 favorite]

Hi Rob,

Rather than reframe the problem, I'm going to try to address the question you asked but it would help to know a little more about the type of display you're working with.

If it's a CRT, it seems like the analog clock would result in less burn-in than the digital clock because the hands would be constantly in motion.

If you're going with a digital form, and you can't move the clock, then you're only left with the options of turning the clock off periodically or modulating its color. The best thing (strictly from a screen-burn perspective) might be to select a font with maximum variability in form between successive numerals.

If it's an LCD then as long as you're using the display for something besides the clock when it's in use, this should be much less of a problem. You can prevent image persistence by turning off the display for a few minutes each day.

// jeff

Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=35445

Post by Joanne Weaver [1 favorite]

User Experience Architect / Sr IA - NYC

Did I get you at "boombastic"? :)

"Largest senior-level job site on Earth" headquartered in NYC with enthusiastic, celebratory and gregarious dotcom-esque culture (kitchen full of treats, spirited rallies/outings/events, Manifest Destiny + forward-thinking thought process) seeks a (Sr) User Experience Architect to join their team immediately. Headquarters in NYC. 2 European offices now also established, with nearly 300 global employees overall.

You would be joining pre-existing UX team with a strong team collective and many opportunities for collaboration, as well as high access and visibility to the greater organization overall, which "gets" and has a thirst for UX.

Projects involve complex, highly transactional and content-rich web dev builds, as well as applications, conversion pages and some marketing sites/pages as well.

>From the client:

"As a User Experience Architect you will play an essential role in defining and designing the user experience of our web properties. You must be proficient in user-centered design principles and comfortable championing those principles across the organization.

You have worked on a wide array of online products including marketing oriented B2C, social networking and B2B sites. You know how to keep it simple, but provide extensive functionality. You are an exceptional problem solver, always identifying new opportunities to improve the user experience.

The ideal candidate will have a strong background in the development of web-based products and services as well as exceptional documentation skills. The User Experience Architect must possess a blend of business and technical savvy and be comfortable working directly with product, creative, and technical engineering teams.

Responsibilities

* Work with project teams to define and design user interfaces * Work with Business Owners and Product Managers to determine user goals and help define strategy and features for attaining those goals * Design the entire user experience as it relates to a particular project or program of projects * Perform all user interface design activities: interaction design, information architecture, etc. * Create wireframes, site maps, schematics, process maps, feature lists, mockups, functional specification, working prototypes and other artifacts to describe the intended user experience * Research target audiences, their profiles and functional needs, and present findings in clear understandable ways

* Manage ongoing changes to product implementation in response to analysis and market changes * Confidently present your work to a variety of stakeholders

Requirements

* 5+ years as an Information Architect or Interaction Designer * Extensive experience conducting all user centered design activities including competitive analysis, user research, interaction design and information architecture * Strong knowledge of site design and aesthetics; * Strong understanding of HTML, Ajax, CSS, and other enabling technologies and their strengths and limitations * Thrive in a deadline-driven, fast-paced team environment * Excellent business and technical skills, quantitative &amp; analytical skills * Excellent presentation skills both in documentation and presentations

Interested?

Email <mailto:joanne at joanneweavergroup.com
> joanne at joanneweavergroup.com

joanne (at) joanneweavergroup (dot) com

Referral bonus:

Know someone great for this role, or know someone who could help us find the perfect person?

$500-$1000 referral bonus eligibility; please feel free to rotate to high-calibre members of your network

Thanks!

Yours in recruiting love x2,

Joanne

The Joanne Weaver Group

<http://www.joanneweavergroup.com
> www.joanneweavergroup.com

UX + Creative Talent Acquisition

Joanne Weaver

President

The Joanne Weaver Group

UX + Creative Talent Acquisition

http://www.joanneweavergroup.com

+1 917 623 9369

Post by Mark Pawson [1 favorite]

I have seen blogs and articles on how to be effective as a one person UI team; However, I would like a practical reference book in the spirit of Rapid Contextual Design by K Holztblatt. Any recommendations? Thanks. Mark

Post by Joshua Seiden [1 favorite]

I would encourage you to look at the work that Lynn Miller (and other members of the Alias/Autodesk team) have done in this area. They have articulated a good framework for bringing Agile methods and UX methods together.

My quick google turned up this deck: wiki.fluidproject.org/download/attachments/1704207/Autodesk_WUD2006_UCDandAgile_lmiller.pdf? version=1

...but Lynn also has papers on this in the ACM Portal/Archive that you should seek out.

Thanks, JS

Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=35254

Post by Veena Gowthamchand [1 favorite]

In your opinion, what are the top U.S. design schools/colleges for user experience?

Thank You.

Veena G

Bestica Inc

Tel: 210-614-4198| <http://www.bestica.com/
> http://www.bestica.com

E-mail ID: - <mailto:veena at bestica.com
> veena at bestica.com

LinkedIn: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/veenarecruiter
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/veenarecruiter

Post by OSS [1 favorite]

Job Title: Interactive Designer Location: New York City - Relocation assistance provided Salary: $90,000 - $150,000 (DOE) per year + benefits

What if there was absolutely nothing stopping you from inventing the next big thing. What would you do if you had a clear voice in developing the next generation of web-based information services? How would you respond if you had the opportunity to be a creative force in one of the most unique and inspiring work cultures in New York City? Our company was born out of a passion for bringing information to consumers. We began with the mission of providing a smarter directory assistance solution to telecom companies, so they could pass on a better and lower priced service to consumers. As a natural extension of our mission, we built our own market leading information brands in Europe and extended our services into text messaging as well. We have recently embarked on a new brand identity which reflects our desire to extend our brand presence to the US and merge our multiple information services under one umbrella. What will never change is our commitment to persistent innovation so we can always provide our customers with the best information experience possible.

With our renewed identity, we setup a high priority intrapraneurship effort, a web start-up nestled within a larger organization, to launch our brand into the web and mobile space. This offers us the best of both worlds: the stability and resources of our parent, with the culture and agility of a startup.

We aren't looking to create some fad products, but rather major newsworthy and landscape changing products, backed by an extensive marketing budget. We are an eclectic group of intelligent, interesting, and fun entrepreneurs with a passion for groundbreaking ideas. The project is still in its early stages, so all hires have an immediate opportunity to have a major impact and enjoy rapid career development.

We operate out of our own Flatiron area loft-space, with an evolving fun and energetic culture, and a growing list of amenities. We hope that all hires will take an active role in helping us define the culture of our company.

RESPONSIBILITIES / QUALIFICATIONS: * Five (5) years Web experience and formal design training with strong typographical, motion-graphic and interaction design skills * A solid understanding of design theory * Passion for the interactive space * Solid systematic design skills * Current examples of personal blog/s, portfolio or online experience you have created or significantly contributed to * An in-depth understanding of HTML and the capabilities of web browsers * Proficiency in Photoshop, Illustrator, and an understanding of Flash as well as a curiosity and willingness to explore new ideas * Fluent in simple executions that make big statements * Self-motivated with a positive attitude * Strong collaborative communication skills * Fresh perspective that embraces challenges as well as new methods of thinking * Experience designing iPhone/Blackberry or Android products a HUGE PLUS

To be considered, please submit your resume and portfolio/blog, etc to bg @ capitalmarketsp.com

Thank you, Beau Gould Executive Advisor Capital Markets Placement www.cmp.jobs bg @ capitalmarketsp.com

-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-JOB--Interactive-Designer% 2C-NYC---90-150k-tp20349723p20349723.html Sent from the ixda.org - discussion list mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Post by Steven Webster [1 favorite]

So the methodology (I actually mentioned it on a previous post on this list) we use within Adobe Consulting, is all about harmonizing the perceived tensions that exist between user-centered design and agile methods (we use SCRUM/XP) so that "build the right thing" and "build things right", so that design-thinking leads and technology and platforms follow.

Our "3D" (Discover, Define, Deliver) approach can be summarized as:

Discover - "build the right thing"

Huge focus in discovery on UCD exercises, ethnography, user interviews, experience audits, and all manner of UX insights being gathered. This is in addition to insight gathering around business goals (success criteria, stakeholder identification, ROI objectives, business context, etc) and technology landscape. There's nothing "Agile" happening yet; we're setting ourselves up for future agile delivery success.

Define - "build the right thing and build things right"

In define, we'll undertake the planning activities of agile - writing user-stories (using personas from discovery as the actors for user-stories is helpful) and estimation of user-stories. However, during define we will do the big-thinking about the UX; we'll focus on information architecture for the overall application, we'll create wireframes and visual language and visual design, we'll create our choreography specs (for Rich Internet Applications, we design with time and motion also; there's a z-axis as well as an x- and y-axis to think about). What we find is that "design informs requirements, and requirements inform design", so it's critical that before we complete story writing, we're doing the innovative big-thinking, informed by our "Discover insights" around UX and business goals, and creating and advocating the user-experience. That will in turn inform our requirements gathering process.

Agile often advocates "epics, themes and stories", and we find that design work can often be undertaken at the theme-level; the UX team have broad-requirements understanding and deep user-insight, to be able to propose innovative user-experiences without yet being at the story level of detail (ie the username will be an email address and password will be between 6 and 8 characters; that's perhaps a technical/business requirement, but it's more detail than necessarily needed for innovative design). It's only as we move into iterations/sprints that we need to really lock on the pixel-level detail in the UX.

So we close out define with all of our stories for a release, with high-level IA and UX for the entire release, and with more detailed user-experience for the initial iterations/sprints of development, at the high-fidelity pixel-level design and with the choreography and motion design nailed (indeed pixel-level comps and choreography deeply impact the estimates/points assigned to a story during iteration and release or sprint planning/backlog prioritization).

Deliver - "build things right"

Deliver is agile development. Stories are planned into 2-3 week iterations/sprints. A story is not available for development unless:

* It is estimated * User-experience design at pixel- and choreography-level is in place for the story * Customer/Acceptance tests are in place for the story

An anti-pattern that we've found, is that if UX is being undertaken in parallel to development, our velocity tails off (our ability to realize business value over time) dramatically. That's why it's so critical that the UX team are ahead of the development team by several iterations; and the more UX work that can be undertaken during define, during elaboration of stories, the more likely we are to sustain implementation pace (velocity) because estimates include the complexity of implementing the UX.

I also find "Sprint 0" or "Iteration 0" to be an anti-pattern; the aim of an iteration or sprint is to allow a customer to prioritise features according to business value, and to measure the pace (velocity, burn down) that we deliver that business value at, as a measure for the future pace of how we'll continue to deliver business value. If we undertake a Sprint 0 where the activities are not software delivery activities (ie doing UX work, or doing installation of software/environment/etc) then we're not measuring anything of worth, with which to project our velocity for future iterations. It's a pedantic point, but if we're sprinting, then we should be able to measure our speed over a distance as a gauge of how much further we might run over the same time.

I think for this list, the experience I'd most share is that in our methodology described above:

Discover is where the magic happens; that's where we are unlikely to unlock and discover the insights that will lead to the "soul" or the "spark" of the user-experience.

Define is where the most effective products are designed; but if and only if we have a highly-collaborative technology and user-experience team, where we don't have a "design" process and an "engineering" process, but instead have a collaborative process where we are collectively responsible for delivering unambiguous requirements, estimated relatively according to the implementation complexity, with a corresponding user-experience design at the pixel- and motion-level.

Design and development, UX and Agile, is a handshake not a handover.

Steven

Steven Webster Director of Technology and User Experience Adobe Consulting

m: +44 7917 428 947 Registered Office: 151 St Vincent Street, Glasgow G2 5NJ. Company No. SC101089

-----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Robert Hoekman Jr Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:24 PM To: Bryan Minihan Cc: discuss at ixda.org Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Agile &amp; UX

>
> My experience is very similar to Elizabeth's, except we spent about 8
> weeks on "sprint 0" when we built the groundwork for our core
> product.

Post by Jessica Petersen [1 favorite]

What are your experiences in an agile environment? What has worked for you and what hasn't?

My organization is considering employing agile, and I tend to be of the opinion that UXD needs to be at the forefront of the process thinking about things holistically - then breaking the project into chunks that will eventually result in a complete user experience. However, I have received quite a bit of push back in this regard and have found it difficult to find other experiences which support my thoughts.

Thanks,

Jessica Petersen Senior UX Designer jpetersen at omniture.com <mailto:jpetersen at omniture.com
> 801.722.7000 x 1483 tel 801.722.7001 fax

550 East Timpanogos Circle Orem, UT 84097 www.omniture.com <http://www.omniture.com
>

next part A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 453 bytes Desc: image003.gif URL: <http://lists.interactiondesigners.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20081103/ed6fd1df/attachment.gif
> next part A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1051 bytes Desc: image004.gif URL: <http://lists.interactiondesigners.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20081103/ed6fd1df/attachment-0001.gif
> next part A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 169 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: <http://lists.interactiondesigners.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20081103/ed6fd1df/attachment.png
>

Post by Steve Baty [1 favorite]

This isn't exactly 'research' but it is relevant, I think - http://docholdsfourth.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-i-want-from-e-book-reader.html

Regards Steve

2008/11/4 Fernandes, Fabio (APG) <Fabio.Fernandes at cengage.com
>

> Hello,
> I'm looking for any research you could share that relates to the use of
> ebooks and possible user preference on its delivery format (true to text vs.
> not).
>
> Thanks in advance for any insight or documents you can point me to.
>
> Best,
> Fabio Fernandes
>
>
> Fabio L. Fernandes
> User Experience Design Manager, CUA
>
> Cengage Learning, Digital Solutions Group
> fabio.fernandes at cengage.com<mailto:fabio.fernandes at cengage.com
>
>
>
>
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

-- Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal Consultant | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E: stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty

Blog: http://docholdsfourth.blogspot.com Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com

Post by Jos&#233; Enrique Gonz&#225;lez Modecir [1 favorite]

Hey IxDA Members, I was looking for some article or material about new paradigms on the operating system side; something like a new type of "interface". The Desktop like paradigm is getting old with all the "Cloud Computing" drums we hear these days.

My personal opinion is that all the mayor platforms (read Windows, Mac OS and Linux) are getting really old; and is difficult to address some of the new challenges of "the cloud" and the "always connected" trend.

Can you point me, to something is been made on this direction? or some article about the future of UI/UE/Interaction on the Operating System. Or better if you have some ideas on this matter and you'll like to share will be great!

Thanks a million

Jose E.

Post by Michael Micheletti [1 favorite]

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Martin <martin.polley at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Another issue -- how to inform people that you are only in contact with
> online that you have passed on? A Final Tweet?
>

Perhaps instead we should call that a Croak? :-)

Michael Micheletti

Post by Sachendra Yadav [1 favorite]

Melissa,

I use Twitter primarily for:

Sharing - I'll post links of what I find is interesting and give some commentary Learning - It's interesting to find out what others are sharing and talking about

In order to keep the signal to noise ratio down, I choose to follow people who post content, comments and likes that fit my interests.

I did a little research on why people tweet a while back with some interesting results, posted it on my blog http://sachendra.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/why-we-tweet-what-value-does-twitter-bring-on-personal-and-business-front/

I'm available on twitter @sachendra

-- Sachendra Yadav http://sachendra.wordpress.com

Post by Gustavo Gawry [1 favorite]

I've thought many times on using mouse tracking data to evaluate usability but I never saw a tool for doing this as many (or most) of us I don't work only with web so this is can't be used by folks who are working on desktop applications. recently I find out a online service that do mouse tracking, replays ( as many others ), but the real difference is that they create heat maps and shows the mouse movements path, because watching mouse movements videos can be really time wasting.

http://vulabs.com

I thought about doing my own tool for that joining these 2 (shown bellow) open source tools but I'm not really a programmer so if anyone here can do that and release to the OSS community I ( and many others) would appreciate.

http://smt.speedzinemedia.com/smt/demos.php http://www.labsmedia.com/clickheat/index.html

-- Gustavo Gawry User Experience Analyst Voice: +55 21 9498-7923 Email: gustavogawry at gmail.com Blog: http://gawry.com (in portuguese) Twitter: gawry

Post by Will Evans [1 favorite]

A while back, there were discussions about design research and inspiration. Steve Portigal has a good little article in Core77 called "Design Research: Practice noticing stuff and telling stories," http://www.core77.com/hack2school/portigal.asp

"To be a better design researcher, hone your ability to observe the world around you. Keep a regular log that you add to at least weekly (daily would be ideal). Document the strange, the curious, the weird, the awesome and the funny. Learn to keep a close eye on the artifacts, signs, designs, behaviors, products and experiences that you encounter in your everyday life.

Put your observations on the Internet. Maybe no one will see them, but the discipline of taking your observations out of your own head and publishing them in a sharable form will force you into telling a story. As much as design research is about observing others, there's something very personal about how and what we see, and developing that voice will serve you well. Collect stories and retell them in your own way, emphasizing the perspective you want others to take away."

Does anyone have a 'suitcase' where the stick stuff they find? I know some of us may use flickr, del.icio.us or other means of collecting inspiration. Moleskin? How do you record your observations and remember where you got inspriration from? I know this is one possible use for @zakiwarfel's research framework which can of course be used for user research/testing but can also be used for book writing and design research. Anyone have a formal process/framework out there?

-- ~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate, and what you innovate are design problems"

Will Evans | User Experience Architect tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com aim: semanticwill gtalk: semanticwill twitter: semanticwill