By: Dan Saffer AIGA
When gathering information for initial research purposes, how do we know when to stop researching and start designing? Is it an ongoing process or does it stop once sketching begins? According to the reading, it seems like Saffer does his initial research all at the beginning, but only has minor research throughout the process. In my opinion, research should be an ongoing thing. When theres lag time in working, and when the designer is stuck in a rut, research should be a form of getting back in motion and gaining more inspiration to work. Also, in the case of User-Centered Design (UCD), research from user interaction will more than likely be used throughout the process. If the designer comes up with a concept, but the user has no understanding of the concept's function, then the designer would have to step back and reevaluate their research and understanding, which could end up in a redesign. Although this would push the designer back in their timeline of work, the outcome of the final product will be stronger in design than it would have been had they completely disregarded the user's input.
Also, when using the Activity-Centered Design approach, when is it appropriate to have users step in and give their input? Is it all reliant on the designer to come up with a concept and design that solves the need of the activity? I believe that UCD, Activity-Centered Design, and System Design come hand-in-hand when coming up with an interactive design. Users should always be considered when solving an "opportunity" because they are the ones mainly interacting with the product. If they can't interact with it properly, then it is not a functioning design. User testing will possibly lead to problems, which will then be solved through new designs based on activities. If a user can't find the power button on a blender and is never able to use the product, then how is it expected to succeed?
No comments:
Post a Comment