Hi Chris
Thanks for your interests. I have come across Hanington's article before (is
he on this list?) and consider it very useful. And I also agree with a few
points he makes:
"Vast resources often are spent on user research and testing, while ultimately
not making any evident connection to design outcomes".
"While designers cannot typically claim the same level of expertise as
professional researchers from other disciplines (e.g. human factors, social
science, marketing, anthroplogy etc), their active participation in the
research process serves at least two purposes"..... "Firstly, knowledge of
design allows interpretation of research information in context"
...."Secondly, immerson in the research process and direct engagment with
users forges a sense of empathy between designer and users".
There is still much to be unravelled between user study and design, though.
For example, we need more arguments and evidences to back the observation that
designers' active involvment is preferable. Or, why are there so many methods,
are they really necessary? Or, on what theoretical basis are these methods
developed? Are these basis compatible with our understanding of design? Or,
what criteria do/should we use to judge the effectiveness of these methods?
Or, what methods do we use to examine these methods? etc, etc....
what is your research question anyway?
Rosan
|