I disagree
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Karel van der Waarde <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> One of the reactions afterwards questioned the value of testing, by
> stating: “A good designer would have predicted most of those test results
> beforehand. Those results are not very surprising.” My answer was of course
> fairly standard: ’They probably are not surprising, but they provide
> quantifiable results about some of the tasks. Those responses are vital to
> check if you make any progress. And they confirm that the assumptions are
> correct.’
I consider myself an expert on human psychology, with multiple decades of
experience in addition to a deep knowledge of theory and experimental
results (some of which I contributed). Nonetheless, whenever I conduct a
test or do field observations, I always discover things that surprise me.
The person who says "a good designer would have predicted most of those
test results ..." is simply showing their arrogance and lack of actual
experience.
The good designer is humble, willing to observe and learn -- over and over
and over again. (The same is true of a good psychologist,
or anthropologist, or scientist.)
Karel is wrong by apologizing, trying to excuse the need for tests by
saying that they are valuable (only) to provide quantitative results. They
are valuable because they show weaknesses in the designs. Designers
who believe they know enough about human behavior to predict all the
results are simply delusional -- and therefore dangerous.
Don
Don Norman
Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego: Think Observe Make
Prof. Emeritus Cognitive Science & Psychology, UCSD
[log in to unmask] www.jnd.org <http://www.jnd.org/>
http://designlab.ucsd.edu/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|