absolutely agree, design has changed but we still have the same design educators. they need to be changed. positions are too long and permanent and the programs do not have adaptability for change in them.
dori
Professor Halldór Gíslason,
Oslo National Academy of the Arts,
Oslo, Maputo, Reykjavik,
Personal Website: http://www.dorigislason.com/
Work Website:
http://www.khiodesign.com/
Academy Website:
http://www.khio.no/
On Oct 28, 2011, at 7:51 AM, Mark Evans wrote:
>
> Don
>
> “Design education needs to change, starting perhaps by changing the educators”.
>
> Or maybe…
>
> “User experience and usability consultants need to change, starting perhaps by changing the consultants”
>
> Whilst the home page for the Nielsen Norman Group web site (http://www.nngroup.com/) might be useable, I wouldn’t describe it as “pleasant” on a visual or charismatic level.
>
> Your critique of the UC Davis website reminds me of the phrase “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
>
> Mark
>
>
> Dr Mark Evans
> Loughborough Design School
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Norman
> Sent: 28 October 2011 00:52
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The shoemaker'c children: designers who produce lousy web pages
>
> Obviously I am capable of giving a detailed critique of the Davis
> website (for example, the heavy use of hype and little use of
> substantive information). To find out what the ug curriculum is, for
> example, one must look elsewhere or download a pdf. But when I find
> that a design professional violates even the most elementary rule
> (that type should be readable), I feel that they do deserve a public
> spanking.
> But I didn't think I needed to give a full critique. I wasn't trying
> to show off my analytical skills: I was just complaining about a
> complete lack of thoughtfulness.
>
> Judging by some of the comments I got, some people on this lost are
> remarkably insensitive to making design usable. Why am I surprised?
> Well, I just hoped that this list would be better than that.
>
> making type tiny to increase white space is:
>
> 1. silly.
>
> 2. Doomed to fail on a website where one has no control over how the
> browser will render it.
>
> the notion that it is OK to flout usability findings because, gee, you
> can always enlarge the type, is also wrong-headed. The fact that if
> the recipient does extra work they can overcome the flaws of poor
> design is not a very human- centered design approach: it is a very
> self-centered approach.
>
> Finally, the notion that it is OK to use tiny type because, after all,
> the advertisement is aimed at young folks is also silly and wrong
> headed:
>
> 1. The goal is for everyone to read it so that some might recommend
> the position to other people.
>
> 2. Good eyesight is not a given, no matter what the age. Many people
> have vision difficulties, starting at a very early age -- even
> pre-teen age years).
>
> 3. Decent designers understand the need to follow accessibility
> principles which take into account the large number of people in the
> world who have difficulties seeing, hearing, etc. This is also called
> universal design. Moreover, it is generally true that following good
> universal design principles not only helps those with disabilities,
> but helps everyone.
>
> It never occurred to me that I would have to spell out these things to
> this particular group of readers.
>
> Design education needs to change, starting perhaps by changing the educators.
>
> Don
|