I believe that design is how we change the
world. Designers are incredibly optimistic
people—believing that they can, absolutely,
change the world for the better.
Natrafiłam na książkę, która uporządkowała mi wiele koncepcji, przekonań, ideii, zmusiła do myślenia i zmobilizowała do działania. Pozwolę sobie wrzucić kilka cytatów w języku angielskim.
Publikacje, prezentacje lub artykuły autorstwa Nathan'a Shedroff'a dotyczące informacji wizualnej, architektury informacji, user experience design itd. można znaleźć w sieci. W większości są udostępniane za darmo. Kiedy czas mi na to pozwoli, to odnajdę linki do materiałów dotyczących powyższych tematów i dodam gdzieś na blogu.
Na tej stronie można znaleźć link do pdfa i według uznania przejrzeć na stronie, lub pobrać plik (536 stron: open source)
http://www.sfu.ca/~asnip/capstone/Design-is-the-Problem.pdf
Subiektywny wybór interesujących fragmentów książki (pod kątem interesujących mnie zagadnienień oraz obszaru związanegp z tematyką dyplomu):
It should be clear by now what I mean by design is the problem. Design that is about appearance, or margins, or offerings and market segments, and not about real people—their needs, abilities, desires, emotions, and so on
—that’s the design that is the problem.
The design that is about systems solutions, intent, appropriate and knowledgeable integration of people, planet, and profit, and the design that, above all, cares about customers as people and not merely consumers—that’s the design that can lead to healthy, sustainable solutions.
Periodically, you should evaluate whether you’re truly working on a solution at the right level to make the change intended.
We shouldn’t be afraid of cooperating on standards, systems, and understandings because this is a necessary precursor to higherorder development and advancement.
Designers don’t need to have a deep knowledge of every issue, but they should take a pass over the list very now and then to be familiar with the variety of issues important to people who are impacted by their solutions.
Effective solutions also require a different type of understanding. Not only are we called to rethink and reframe the need and solution, but we also need to reconsider the boundaries of what we consider the solution itself to be.
Precautionary Principle: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”Kilka przykładów różnych dróg, jakimi może przebiegać proces projektowy ( w kontekście różnych wymogów stawianych projektantowi przez klienta, ograniczeń i środków, które indukuje przemysł i koszty produkcji, realizacji, czasu itd. )
There are several different development processes currently in use around the world. Depending on the industry and product or service, developers may use any of the following:
“Extreme” Programming, Spiral Development, and “Agile:” A concurrent developmental approach, especially for software, that starts technical development immediately and rapidly iterates it. Unfortunately, many agile developers try to iterate both customer requirements and technical requirements (front-end and back-end)concurrently as well, usually resulting in interfaces that inadequately meet customer needs. Because of the pace of development, decisions are often not always strategically driven but instead are tactically driven. This development approach requires close communication and coordination among the team and constant team-wide check-ins.
Skunkworks: An approach to separating a team from the “normal” developmental process and the rest of the organization, in order to innovate where innovation has been difficult otherwise. This works best with multidisciplinary team members representing all aspects of development, including marketing, operations, manufacturing, human resources, service, and so on.team’s organizational learning is often dissipated when its members are reintegrated back into the rest of the company. Also, if this is the only way for a company to innovate, it says something significant and troubling about the organization’s present culture.
“Genius Design:” This is a common approach that is comfortable for designers, engineers, and marketers alike (because it doesn’t rely on customer research), but it is the most risky and least successful (because it doesn’t rely on a deeper understanding of customers’ needs discovered in customer research). The most famous and successful practitioner of this approach is Apple, Inc., but without a leader like Steve Jobs (with his uncanny and unusual sense of what customers want and need), it would have been a failure (as most organizations who develop this way eventually discover). While it can be highly efficient and fast, it often leads to overly technical solutions that don’t match what customers want.
User-Centric or User Experience: Modern user/customer-driven processes make a point to research customer needs before solutions are specified. They use a variety of quantitative and qualitative research techniques and tools to integrate and express what is found via customer profiles and scenarios. They make use of user testing throughout the development process (before technical specs are decided and not merely for troubleshooting interfaces after the solution is mostly completed). It is often criticized for being more expensive and timeconsuming for development, and even with substantial time spent understanding users, the trouble in identifying and translating customer needs—and the support for doing so at leadership levels in an organization—can still lead to solutions that miss important aspects of the customer experience.
Six Sigma: This is a specific, detailed approach to developing quality solutions created by Motorola in the late 1980s. Its purpose was to devise a reliable way to measure and increase quality throughout the development process. While it has seen gains in manufacturing and other parts of operations, it’s not suited to strategic innovation, concept-generation, or understanding the customer experience.
Hybrid Models: Most organizations use a mix of techniques from many of the previous processes in order to develop in a way that works for their culture. Obviously, some are more successful than others, and there’s probably no one “right” way to develop anything. However, none of the previous techniques is inherently sufficient for incorporating sustainability easily into an organization. While it is possible to integrate all of the principles and strategies in this book into most processes, I’ll illustrate this point using what I consider a more complete development process, because it incorporates both strategic and tactical development.
“Waterfall:” A step-by-step, phased approach that finishes one phase before starting another. This often results in slower development but more complete specifications and more successful interfaces and solutions. This development, however, can lead to disconnection and compartmentalization of teams and inefficient use of some resources while prior phases are being completed.
