Peter,
No cuteness implied. :-)
Remember, I'm an engineer. There's this publication that's being prepared.
A reviewer has insisted that work be cited justifying the notion that,
basically, fixing errors as early as possible is the best strategy.
Grounding this in HF, the matter becomes: say some HF related problem
crops up once a product is in use. The argument is that it would have been
less costly and consumptive of fewer resources, and would probably save
some HF related injuries in users, etc. if the error had been spotted as
early as possible (i.e. during design) rather than having to be dealt with
once the product is in manufacture or, even worse, use.
Does this help clarify?
Cheers.
Fil
On 4 March 2012 13:49, Peter Jones | Redesign <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Not to be cute Fil, but what you have to operationally define is "better,"
> and "design" and "intervention" as well as the product or outcome context.
> It also depends on the context in which you're presenting the research
> paper.
>
> There should be plenty of research in the product innovation and project
> management literature on the increasing magnitude of costs and
> recoding/rework to discover a bug or flaw of ANY kind in requirements (or
> early design) phases rather than development or testing phases. As a
> working
> designer, our intention in product innovation work has always been to
> influence the final design sooner, with sufficient field evidence and a
> sufficiently rich prototype, so that all project team members can
> understand
> the options and make the best decisions sooner. I would not ever call a
> design problem a human factors flaw, because human factors are the human
> constraints we have to understand and design for. The flaws are always in
> our limited ability to perceive, represent and evaluate the interaction and
> opportunity.
>
> What we try to avoid are late discoveries (say in usability testing) that
> end up changing significant features and interactions when they are already
> specified or worse, coded.
>
> Sorry I can't give you a cite right now, but I just thought you might look
> in different literatures than design for this. And to define the research
> question and operational context so that the cite makes the most impact.
>
> Best, Peter
>
> Peter Jones, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor, Faculty of Design
> OCAD University
> http://designdialogues.com
>
> [...]
>
>
--
\V/_
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|