Clients from Hell

clientsfromhell.net

Clients from Hell is a site I've been following for a few years now. After our discussion today, it reminded me of this blog and how it gave me a few good laughs, and a few things to worry about. :(

Have a good night! 

- Heather

Class Reflection 1.9.2013

In class today, we held a class discussion about the reading assignment. It covered four different ways of approaching a design problem, the four being: user-centered design (UCD), activity-centered design, system design, and genius design. Although Saffer barely touched on the topic of intertwining some of the techniques, we believe the most successful designs come from those that do so.

We as designers must satisfy the needs of a client. However, some clients believe they know exactly what they want, or exactly what it takes to make a successful design, and this may not be the best solution for the problem. So, how do we approach the situation? The best way, in my opinion, is to present three or four options... one of which is exactly what the client had previously requested, while the other two or three are your take on the problem. They may see that your design is really what they want and go with it, or, worst case, they go with their "well thought out" design. At this point, it would be best to suck it up and set your pride aside for one project. Although we hope that this isn't the case, it does happen in the field many times.

Another option would be to present some research (if time is not an option...). Show the client who is doing the same thing and which ones are having success while others are failures. Saffer states that "the user is always right", but the user doesn't always know what is best.

If they did, then why would they be paying a designer to tell them otherwise?

Class Reflections 1.7.2013

Today in class, we discussed different types of Graphic Designers, and what their roles are. We made a list, which brought up the topic of interactive designers. This led us to our semester project that will teach us how to think more like an interactive designer, rather than just visual designers.

I believe this is a great skill to learn, especially in a new time of technology where almost everything is designed for an experience. We need to learn to contribute ideas in the earlier states of a project, rather than at the tail end. This will make us more valuable as designers, and in the end, more marketable.

This project stirred up much excitement in our class, and I am curious to see what everyone comes up with. The door was left open for us to design anything we want, which can be exciting yet terrifying at the same time. It's almost like a mini thesis project, where your entire process will be documented and turned in at the end for review. Every step is critical, and should be for a great final product.

Can't see what is in store for the semester!

- Heather

Reading HW for 1.9.2013

Design for Interaction - Creating Smart Applications and Clever Devices
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?