Lee McIvor.

Thanks for that MJ. I'm in the UK so I haven't come across FreshDirect before, and those links are great. Thanks to everyone else too for their replies.

Here in the UK Ocado seems to be the leader in this space - they're my client - but it's interesting to see what other companies are doing elsewhere in the world. There's always something new to learn from competitors, even the ones that don't look that good!

Lee

----- Original Message ---- From: MJ Broadbent <mj at mjbroadbent.com
> To: discuss at ixda.org Sent: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008 19:19:00 Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Online grocery shopping

I can definitely vouch for FreshDirect, as a customer since its inception and as an area IxD practitioner. I believe one of the main reasons for its amazing success is that interaction design was and is an integral part of its development. It's another great example of what can be accomplished when top management integrate design from the ground up.

One of their lead IAs, Andrew Purcell, gave a great talk in 2005 about the development back story. Details (including slides) are here: http://www.nycupa.org/pastevent_05_0621.html

Also, in locating that info, I turned up a tech case study, which might prove useful to your team: http://www.splunk.com/article/2017

Cheers! MJ

P.S. I had one occasion to use a brick-and-mortar grocer's online site (D'Agostino) and it was SO terrible, particularly in comparison with Fresh Direct, that I filed a complaint and bailed out completely.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=33981

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

Yohan Creemers.

A more obvious solution to your problem is: Label [input] Label [input]

The lay-out of the form should contribute to the understanding of the form.

I see no problem or in putting related fields in columns Phone Extension [input] [input]

or in putting tabular data in columns: http://www.ylab.nl/images/portfolio/litecad-timesheet.png http://www.ylab.nl/images/portfolio/litecad-transactions.png

- Yohan

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=34016

Christina Wodtke.

We never stop being designers, we just stop having the title. We are more than a title.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jim Leftwich <jleft at orbitnet.com
> wrote:

> I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the
> assumption/assertion that the only way to move up or occupy a
> leadership role in a corporation or organization is to leave the
> designer track for a management track. This may well be the case
> with how some (to date) have made the upward transition, but this is
> also a bit like looking in the rearview mirror in order to drive.
>
> I believe in beginning with an idea of where we as individuals (and
> in turn others) in the field *would like to be positioned* and
> work/struggle/persevere toward that in order to make things different
> than they might seem today.
>
> The idea of designers stopping being designers/the design leaders as
> they advance has always struck me as alarming, as the complexity of
> skills and judgement necessary to design interactive systems and
> shape whole product and service experiences is something that greatly
> benefits from the judgment of people with many years experience.
> These people need to both have a large say in the design of
> experience and interaction as well as the power to direct and
> influence how this balanced within their organization.
>
> During my two decades as a consultant, I found that aligning my
> contracts at the executive level (and coordinating my design efforts
> at the project level) enabled a great deal of influence and direction
> that was necessary in order for the product and user experience to
> emerge as designed and the resulting goals realized.
>
> Now at a relatively small search engine startup, I'm dividing my
> time between executive strategy, directing (limited) inside and
> outside resources. I have great control, but limited time and a
> nearly unlimited number of challenges on all sides. It's a very
> different set of challenges. But I still design, and would continue
> to do so and be involved in other design iniatives at their core no
> matter how large and resourced our organization may become.
>
> In other words, I could not possibly conceive of taking off my design
> hat. At least in those areas where my core expertise lies.
>
> I would even argue that it's much easier to find help in basic
> management tasks, than it is to find the most skilled and broadly
> experienced designers, and so I delegate some business work while
> concentrating on what I find are much more valuable integration tasks
> - integrating design values into the company's core.
>
> I would not suggest that Christina and Scott are wrong, but more that
> they are missing the "what could be"-ness in this crucial issue
> facing our field.
>
> Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking
> off their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of
> management? Or might we *also* envision an alternative path - one
> that sees the co-equal role of design, architecture, and integration
> as a key need of all product and service-based companies, and one
> that cannot simply be *managed* from a management class that exists
> above a worker/designer level somewhere further down.
>
> I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a challenge for
> perception and vision. I believe there are no *inherent* limitations
> to designers and that we will see much evolution in this, one career
> at a time, as we move forward.
>
> - Jim
>
> James Leftwich, IDSA
> Chief Experience Officer
> SeeqPod, Inc.
> Emeryville, CA
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=33964
>
>
>
> 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
>

Andrei Herasimchuk.

On Oct 7, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:

> In general terms, look for ways to become self-sufficient. Make
> certain you can secure your own computer and software and make
> certain you're as networked as possible. Strong networks, such as
> we have here within the IxDA community will likely be one of the more
> valuable assets in surviving and regrouping during any serious or
> protracted downturn. Connect as much as you can. And connect to as
> many types of people as possible.

Extremely good advice.

-- Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com c. +1 408 306 6422

Jim Leftwich.

Good insights here so far.

It's true that we don't know how this will play out, but it's a very good bet that we're in for some very rough and turbulent times ahead. We've seen over 22 trillion dollars erased from the world's credit markets this year, and we're seeing up close what that's doing to our markets. About the best thing that can be said at this point is that we've all got some window of time in which to plan and act.

Now is a very good time to begin looking at what each of us can do to maximize our survivability as designers in uncertain times. I like Andrei's advice very much, just in general, as that's going to be beneficial no matter what occurs. I'll add my agreement to the importance of building up broad skills, and directly implementable skills. Being "T-shaped," in your skillset will always be valuable in terms of flexibility.

Also, it's important to consider the difference between those in our community who work in corporations and the many of us that are self-employed as consultants and contractors. Or, work in small consulting or design firms. Economic turbulence can affect designers differently depending on their individual work and employment configurations.

In my career, most of which was spent as a consultant (either by myself or with three or fewer employees), I found that consultants and contractors can often pick up work from companies that might not be in a position to hire or support full-time designers or design staffs. So in a downturn, consulting and contracting is one option that designers should consider. There are many challenges to going it alone or with a few partners, but there are also rewards.

Consider looking into this option, if you're a corporate designer, just as a fall-back option. It's not for everyone, but there are usually increased opportunities when companies are slicing their employee counts. The most successful products and services will still need to be designed, so that design effort will have to come from somewhere.

In general terms, look for ways to become self-sufficient. Make certain you can secure your own computer and software and make certain you're as networked as possible. Strong networks, such as we have here within the IxDA community will likely be one of the more valuable assets in surviving and regrouping during any serious or protracted downturn. Connect as much as you can. And connect to as many types of people as possible.

In shakeouts that come from economic downturns, it's inevitable that some people will leave the field altogether to pursue or take advantage of other types of work. If this happens to you, remember, you're not simply what you're doing at any given moment. You're the sum total of everything you've ever done and may do in the future. If you leave the design field, you will always benefit from the skills you've gained in this field. If you are forced to leave the design field, try as best you can to stay abreast of skills and larger trends in design and development, so that you'll be in as good a position as possible to return, if that's your goal.

I believe that there's much collective wisdom here in our growing community regarding the economic and career aspects of our chosen discipline. Let's all contribute to and take advantage of that great resource, and IxDA will be a valuable networking resource in the period ahead.

James Leftwich, IDSA Chief Experience Officer SeeqPod, Inc. Emeryville, CA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=34025

Andrei Herasimchuk.

On Oct 7, 2008, at 8:10 PM, David Malouf wrote:

> Andrei, a very specific question ... if I know Flash ActionScript 3
> or Blend VB is that good enough?

Short answer: Yes.

> I don't qualify either way, but
> I'm just curious why you were so specific about HTML/Browser tech?

Long answer: If you know ActionScript or VisualBasic, learning something like JavaScript is not a huge leap. Of those choices, JavaScript is more popular and a bit more general purpose in its use in the field (with more robust and useful OpenSource libraries and tools like JQuery and such) so I'm recommending JavaScript given how much it would cover if you were starting from scratch. However, if you already know a scripting language, then learning another one is simply tedious versus being a whole new world you might have to grapple with.

And as always, knowing all three is even better.

-- Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com c. +1 408 306 6422

Mike Scott.

I really like this layout. Very cool.

http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2008/10/07/1966529-who-won-the-presidential-debate

David Malouf.

Generalists are more secure, but find a T spot that helps differentiate you so you don't become a blur. AND so you have a place to land when the crisis is over.

Andrei, a very specific question ... if I know Flash ActionScript 3 or Blend VB is that good enough? I don't qualify either way, but I'm just curious why you were so specific about HTML/Browser tech?

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=34025

Scott Berkun.

As bad as things seem, the complexity of what's happening is so far beyond what even the people in the middle of it can understand that this sort of thing is premature. There are too many interconnections in how debt has been allowed to work (which is part of how we got into this mess) to understand how it will play out over the next year.

That said, It's easier to slice up the standing of the company you work for, than how a profession as a whole will fair. A good pile of companies that died in the 2000 dotcom bubble were very weak, fragile companies without much of a story, and little sense of long term thinking. I expect the same to happen.

Also, the strength of your employer is easier to evaluate than the strength of a profession, and will have more to do whether you'll be looking for a new job or not.

As Andrei pointed out, specialists are often first to go for obvious reasons - having many proficiencies can make you more valuable. But if the company can't make 15% of its payroll for December, it doesn't matter what talent or job title you have.

-Scott

Scott Berkun www.scottberkun.com

MJ Broadbent.

I can definitely vouch for FreshDirect, as a customer since its inception and as an area IxD practitioner. I believe one of the main reasons for its amazing success is that interaction design was and is an integral part of its development. It's another great example of what can be accomplished when top management integrate design from the ground up.

One of their lead IAs, Andrew Purcell, gave a great talk in 2005 about the development back story. Details (including slides) are here: http://www.nycupa.org/pastevent_05_0621.html

Also, in locating that info, I turned up a tech case study, which might prove useful to your team: http://www.splunk.com/article/2017

Cheers! MJ

P.S. I had one occasion to use a brick-and-mortar grocer's online site (D'Agostino) and it was SO terrible, particularly in comparison with Fresh Direct, that I filed a complaint and bailed out completely.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=33981

Jarod Tang.

Hi Robert,

For e.g., "the elements of users experience", put the different design into a hierarchy of different design ( strategy design, information design, interaction design and visual design, etc). Which may scared the product producer, "do i really need such kind of Ds? ", and as well, this also makes designer in wild, "how could i put so much Ds in my tool box to make myself capable? ". And i guess this is one of the cause why so many guys cant agree with each other on how ixd should be, or UX should be?

Maybe the answer is simple and straight, the goal is something to be used in user's everyday life, and the aim is to make people get goals easier, happier etc. And back from this goal and aim, all the related Ds can be considered as a design problem solving method/tool-box which is ready for designer's use. Or even better put them into some method cards with smart questions ( as IDEO does) , to make this fun and fruitful. Maybe forget the names, not very bad, cause only results that counts.

For a design domain ( according to the Science of Artificial),

0.The goal/definition part What's the problem the design seek to solve? I should/better address the dirven problem the design domain target (better than name it by major method or process).
>From this perspective, ACD is more target to the method (not so good), UCD as well has a distance to the driven problem. [suggest first clarify this problem, then maybe the better name follows].

1. The evaluation part How to to say if the design solution/artifact is good or bad? What's the criteria to for the evaluation ? [we can say it's good by this, that or something else] What's the pragmatic of evaluation by logic ? [ first what, then what] 2. The design solution searching What';s the searching strategy ? [e.g. prototyping, existing product analyzing,] How to arrange the searching steps? [ first what, then what. GDD or similar things] How to represent/sketch the solution? [ wireframe, screen layout, and related stuffs]

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Robert Hoekman Jr <robert at rhjr.net
> wrote:
>
>
>
> The bottom line for me is that UCD, or at least the way it's understood by
>
> the non-design community, makes products better most of the time, period.
>
>
> (Continuing my last post ...)
>
> UCD doesn't make things better. Designers do. I think that is what's
> understood by people outside the design world. I doubt most people care what
> we name our approach to design or even how we do it.
>
> But Peter's point is very valid&#8212;that we need lines drawn between types of
> design, at least to a degree. Industrial designers are very different than
> graphic artists, for example, and graphic artists are very different than
> interaction designers.
>
> I know this: I've never marketed myself as an "Activity-Centered Designer".
> I've marketed myself as an "interaction designer", a "user experience
> designer", and a "software designer". The questions about what I do usually
> stop after a basic explanation of that role.
>
> -r-
>
> 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
>

-- http://designforuse.blogspot.com/

james horgan.

Couple of reasons for the hate-on: Lack of consistency across various projects; one methodology for one type of project will not work for another. This makes it difficult for execs and project managers to accurately gauge the cost effectiveness of a project, which would drive any money person nuts. It is the number one area everyone can throw in their 2 cents so it means different things to different people It's often seen by execs as saving a failing project, of course when it doesn't, its the first to blame. The people who do UCD often cannot relate it to a monetary value for the senior team, again another reason to dislike what is seen as a 'vague' profession based on feelings - in complete contrast to business philosophy.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=33885

Andrei Herasimchuk.

On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Damon Dimmick wrote:

> I just thought I would throw my thoughts on the list, see what other
> people think, and help stir up some opinions on how IxDA (and related)
> practitioners can continually show their value in a market that may
> become very tight, very very soon.

Simply put?

If you don't yet know how to create clean, simple visual aesthetics, then learn to do so. Also become an expert at using Photoshop, Illustrator or Fireworks to create production level digital assets for this work. Visio won't cut it.

If you don't know how to write good HTML+CSS markup, or have a good enough grasp of JavaScript to be able to work with something JQuery, then get some books and get to learning how to code. Axure doesn't cut it. WSYWIG approaches to this won't cut it.

Designers in the technology sector that have these hard skills will become the ones that survive should the economy force companies to start serious cutbacks. Why? Because designers who can do these things can also contribute to a project at a deeper level and cover multiple jobs where cost cutting is happening. The good news is that these skills are possible to learn in one's personal off time, and it's easy enough to create personal projects to force you to pick up the skills. That being: build a personal website, blog or whatever suits your fancy.

-- Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com c. +1 408 306 6422

james horgan.

I work primarily on designing applications for Microsoft Surface, and I would say it's less hype and becoming more of a reality. Haptic feedback, pressure sensitivity; and accuracy are all becoming realities for touchscreen technology so its becoming much more a practical part of a persons life. I would say touchscreen in its current state is aimed at a different type of interaction than a typical computer interface, e.g. typing. I'd also say touchscreen has been around for at least 2 decades and is becoming more of a pervasive reality than the clunky ATM touchscreens of yesteryear! It's still early days of course, but it's less about the hype and more about designing innovative useful applications that maximize touch tech potential. thanks james

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=33524

james horgan.

If you have proven data as to how your designs are correlated to the bottom line of profit, I would pursue it with HR and Exec team, they may see it differently as to how valuable they think your skillset is and they need to make cutbacks. You have to ask yourself are you willing to work for another company where this could easily happen again (sorry but when times get tough, designers are always the first to go). I wouldn't take it personally and start looking for work, i'd use this bottom line value as a good training exercise as to how much you are really worth to a company.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=33867

Damon Dimmick.

Hey there, colleagues.

With the financial crisis and credit crunch hitting the economy squarely in the wallet, my thoughts have been drifting towards musings on the viability and resiliency of IxDA (and related) jobs during a major economic downturn.

In the IT sector, I'm already seeing the early warning signs of a downturn the likes of which I haven't seen since the Dot-Com bubble, though the epicenter this time is outside of the IT world. Several of my contacts and colleagues who are involved in the management of smaller IT firms are already pulling back on investing in new hires, eying the value of their current stable of employees, and preparing for the worst.

Generally, I feel like IxDA, while pretty valuable, is the type of work which offers a business value that is not as easily understood by numbers-minded executives who are constantly scanning for short-term, demonstrable ROI. As with any job related to design, there's a real tendency to minimize the value of the skillset because it doesn't have the kind of immediate, measurable impact that a lot of managers like to quantify. Of course, this isn't always the case, and many organizations understand the strong importance of the field, but my anecdotal experience seems to indicate that interaction / design people tend to be scrutinized earlier and more closely when the time comes for personnel cuts.

I just thought I would throw my thoughts on the list, see what other people think, and help stir up some opinions on how IxDA (and related) practitioners can continually show their value in a market that may become very tight, very very soon.

-Damon Dimmick SitePen. Inc,

Jim Leftwich.

What I learned over decades of consulting was that it mattered most what level the contract came in at, in terms of how much power and influence the resulting design (which would sometimes be done entirely in the consulting and sometimes in conjunction with internal developers). A contract at the Project Manager level would often lead to design decisions vetoed or watered down at higher levels from within the company. Contracts that came in at the Vice President or CEO level, even when coordinated with production departments, would often proceed much smoother and lead to products that were less compromised and ultimately more successful. There are many variables in this equation, obviously, so its important not to overgeneralize regardless of what angle any of us are coming from.

As far as what you've seen and not seen Scott, I've read your book. However, my experience has been fairly different from your statement of having never seen the power over engineering or veto power. I was, at one engineering consultancy of 130, the sole designer, and definitely had great control and power to guide the integration of industrial design, software design, interaction design, and overall product experience and design, much as an architect would have in working together with very skilled builders on a custom project. Again, a single data point, but at the same point, not someone interviewed for your book, so outside of what you'd found and studied. I think it's important to understand where the hills in the topology are, but the outliers are also greatly important in that they map real and existing territory. Perhaps more designers can learn valuable lessons and strategies from the outliers, even as they learn from the experiences of those sharing the most commonly found situations.

I always liked Tom Peters' books, not because he told the stories and lessons of the average corporate people, but the experiences, challenges and triumphs of those that went beyond. His books were aspirational in that way.

My current role is one of defining the culture and value system near the beginning of the company. The challenges in doing that are somewhat inverted from trying to move up within traditional organizations, but given that we're constantly creating new organizations, there is much to be said about getting the genetics of organizations right at conception as opposed to trying to re-engineer organizations whose cultures and values are long set and deeply ingrained. I also understand the great value and opportunity that exists in consulting to those companies though, and helping them to make that transition and evolution as best possible.

Both models, and likely everything in between, are valid approaches to moving our field forward.

My own means of judging efficacy remains to look at the actual work, products, services, and career accomplishments of designers and their companies and then to seek to understand more about the diversity of those approaches, rather than try to look for the most common experiences and derive a reductionistic assessment or prescription.

While it's true that designing organizations is valuable, it's also true that there will always also be much innovation occuring in small ad hoc teams that come together for a development project, and among individuals doing broad design. It's imporant to recognize the importance and distribution of both.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=33964

Scott Berkun.

Agreed there are many ways to achieve anything. Carpe Diem Designum!

> Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers
> taking off their design/architecture hats and joining the
> ranks of management?

Here's my take - If you talk to a *good* general manager, someone who is the unifying point for all disciplines for a single product, much of their language is design language: defining problems, exploring alternative solutions, running experiments, making tradeoff decisions, etc. They are doing organizational design, which in many ways is more challenging than interaction design (pixels rarely come to your office and yell at you, threaten to quit, or try to steal your authority behind your back).

If you believe design is at its core a problem solving activity, there are many connections for design talent to surface in management and leadership activity. Designing a team, constructing a vision, crafting a strategy, are all problem solving activities at worst loosely akin to design.

> Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking off
> their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of management?

I don't care much for management - I care about power. The only reason a designer can effect change on the world is through power. Whether it's granted, stolen, borrowed, or earned. If you work in a 50 or 500 person organization, there is a distribution of power that has little to do with you and your design talent: it has to do with how the organization has been designed.

Consultants and specialists rarely have power by design. They are outnumbered, have less skin in the game, and it's politically acceptable to ignore and veto them.

The top problem I see, and would love to help solve (e.g. the thread is 'the biggest problems'), is designers and their common lack of power.

That said, I would like to see our oldest and most experienced designers accumulating as much power as they can within their organizations. Most power in most corporations does not reside in design. To get that power requires either getting it granted piecemeal from up above, or going up there yourself and handing it down to those you've hired and deem worthy of that power. We need powerful design enablers more than designers.

We now have thousands of interaction designers. We still have only a handful of people willing to fight for the political power they need to thrive.

> Or might we *also* envision an alternative path -
> one that sees the co-equal role of design,
> architecture, and integration as a key need of
> all product and service-based companies, and one
> that cannot simply be *managed* from a management
> class that exists above a worker/designer level
> somewhere further down.

I have never seen a role like this have any substantive power over engineering or business, not even veto power. As soon as a schedule slips, or budget is cut, roles like these get a minority vote, if any, in how it's resolved.

I can imagine it - but it's a stretch for one reason: I'm convinced the design of most corporations is set against specialized roles holding much power. I admit I may be wrong - in fact I'd like to be wrong - help convince me :)

-Scott

Scott Berkun www.scottberkun.com

-----Original Message----- From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Jim Leftwich Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 2:16 PM To: discuss at ixda.org Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] The biggest problems

I think it's a mistake, and a large one, to make the assumption/assertion that the only way to move up or occupy a leadership role in a corporation or organization is to leave the designer track for a management track. This may well be the case with how some (to date) have made the upward transition, but this is also a bit like looking in the rearview mirror in order to drive.

I believe in beginning with an idea of where we as individuals (and in turn others) in the field *would like to be positioned* and work/struggle/persevere toward that in order to make things different than they might seem today.

The idea of designers stopping being designers/the design leaders as they advance has always struck me as alarming, as the complexity of skills and judgement necessary to design interactive systems and shape whole product and service experiences is something that greatly benefits from the judgment of people with many years experience. These people need to both have a large say in the design of experience and interaction as well as the power to direct and influence how this balanced within their organization.

During my two decades as a consultant, I found that aligning my contracts at the executive level (and coordinating my design efforts at the project level) enabled a great deal of influence and direction that was necessary in order for the product and user experience to emerge as designed and the resulting goals realized.

Now at a relatively small search engine startup, I'm dividing my time between executive strategy, directing (limited) inside and outside resources. I have great control, but limited time and a nearly unlimited number of challenges on all sides. It's a very different set of challenges. But I still design, and would continue to do so and be involved in other design iniatives at their core no matter how large and resourced our organization may become.

In other words, I could not possibly conceive of taking off my design hat. At least in those areas where my core expertise lies.

I would even argue that it's much easier to find help in basic management tasks, than it is to find the most skilled and broadly experienced designers, and so I delegate some business work while concentrating on what I find are much more valuable integration tasks - integrating design values into the company's core.

I would not suggest that Christina and Scott are wrong, but more that they are missing the "what could be"-ness in this crucial issue facing our field.

Do we really want our oldest and most experienced designers taking off their design/architecture hats and joining the ranks of management? Or might we *also* envision an alternative path - one that sees the co-equal role of design, architecture, and integration as a key need of all product and service-based companies, and one that cannot simply be *managed* from a management class that exists above a worker/designer level somewhere further down.

I don't see this as an argument. I see this as a challenge for perception and vision. I believe there are no *inherent* limitations to designers and that we will see much evolution in this, one career at a time, as we move forward.

- Jim

James Leftwich, IDSA Chief Experience Officer SeeqPod, Inc. Emeryville, CA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=33964

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

mark schraad.

Jim,

Point taken... and a poorly worded sentence did not help. I should have typed "it would be somewhat disingenuine to suggest that this is anywhere close to the norm". If you are not suggesting that this is the norm, then no need for you to be upset. In any case, there is little need for you to feel insulted.

Further, the last thing I would do is in anyway suggest that your success 'doesn't count'. In fact, I think it is admirable. I just wish it was more commonplace. I think the mantra needs to be along the lines of encouraging smart, business or management minded folks to boldly go in that direction.

Far from embracing the 'way things are', I work everyday to make change in my little corner of the world so that our field, and the larger field of design has the room to effect change and make a difference. Progress has been dramatic in some environments and completely stifled in others.

On a personal note... I should probably take more care in the manor in which I say things here, but harsh rebuttals are what keep many silent on this forum. I wish there was more tolerance towards open discussion, disagreement and and even some resolve.

We probably agree Jim, on much more than we disagree.

Mark

On Oct 7, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Jim Leftwich wrote:

> Mark, let me respectfully yet firmly disagree with you. Firstly, I
> did in no way whatsoever suggest, assert, nor imply that my situation
> (as one of the earliest pioneers in Interaction Design) was "close to
> the norm" as you put it. In fact, if you read my post you'll
> clearly see that I actually took great pains to *not* refute or argue
> with what Christina and Scott had said, but rather was positing the
> importance of keeping open the possibility of envisioning and working
> *one career at a time* toward alternate situations.
>
> To call an aspect of my post "disingenous" strikes me as highly
> insulting. It's one thing to put words in someone else's mouth,
> but then to call that somewhat disingenuous, well... Really.
>
> Perhaps you would like to back up and rephrase your assessment.
> Mutual respect is of the highest order in our conversations here and
> I believe that everyone would concur that if we are to move forward,
> we must be free to put forth our ideas without the type of assault on
> character that charges of disingenuity carry.
>
> And if there's been any single rhetorical gambit employed against
> anything I've ever suggested over the past twenty-five years, it's
> been something along the lines of, "Well, okay, but you're
> different. So that doesn't count and we can (implied) ignore what
> you're saying."
>
> We're all different. Each and every designer, though we may live in
> world of bell curves and common realities, has the ability to turn our
> rudders and adjust our trim tabs to move in a wide variety of
> directions. There will never be a shortage of those appealing "to
> the way things are," and my voice is simply there to insist that
> while there is much truth to those realities (and I would never, for
> a second, imply disingenuity on the part of those arguing from those
> positions), that every one of us has the potential to be an
> exception.
>
> And when all of those exceptions are added in, our field can move
> forward. It behooves every designer, no matter how young, to work
> toward earning that respect that they seek for themselves and for our
> field. Seek those networking opportunities. Seek that constant
> education and breadth of experience. Put your efforts into movement,
> not despair.
>
> Suspend at least some portion of your judgement for what *you* think
> should be, and work toward making that a reality. I certainly did
> not just wake up one morning with the opportunities I have today. I
> struggeled against great odds and against the opinions and judgements
> of many others, including many in our own field, and suffered many
> setbacks along the way. We live in a continuum, not a fixed
> situation. We are on paths, not tracks.
>
> This is what I was saying. I'm surprised to see it taken so very
> wrongly.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=33964
>
>
>
> 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

Jim Leftwich.

Mark, let me respectfully yet firmly disagree with you. Firstly, I did in no way whatsoever suggest, assert, nor imply that my situation (as one of the earliest pioneers in Interaction Design) was "close to the norm" as you put it. In fact, if you read my post you'll clearly see that I actually took great pains to *not* refute or argue with what Christina and Scott had said, but rather was positing the importance of keeping open the possibility of envisioning and working *one career at a time* toward alternate situations.

To call an aspect of my post "disingenous" strikes me as highly insulting. It's one thing to put words in someone else's mouth, but then to call that somewhat disingenuous, well... Really.

Perhaps you would like to back up and rephrase your assessment. Mutual respect is of the highest order in our conversations here and I believe that everyone would concur that if we are to move forward, we must be free to put forth our ideas without the type of assault on character that charges of disingenuity carry.

And if there's been any single rhetorical gambit employed against anything I've ever suggested over the past twenty-five years, it's been something along the lines of, "Well, okay, but you're different. So that doesn't count and we can (implied) ignore what you're saying."

We're all different. Each and every designer, though we may live in world of bell curves and common realities, has the ability to turn our rudders and adjust our trim tabs to move in a wide variety of directions. There will never be a shortage of those appealing "to the way things are," and my voice is simply there to insist that while there is much truth to those realities (and I would never, for a second, imply disingenuity on the part of those arguing from those positions), that every one of us has the potential to be an exception.

And when all of those exceptions are added in, our field can move forward. It behooves every designer, no matter how young, to work toward earning that respect that they seek for themselves and for our field. Seek those networking opportunities. Seek that constant education and breadth of experience. Put your efforts into movement, not despair.

Suspend at least some portion of your judgement for what *you* think should be, and work toward making that a reality. I certainly did not just wake up one morning with the opportunities I have today. I struggeled against great odds and against the opinions and judgements of many others, including many in our own field, and suffered many setbacks along the way. We live in a continuum, not a fixed situation. We are on paths, not tracks.

This is what I was saying. I'm surprised to see it taken so very wrongly.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss? post=33964