Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1164RE: [agile-usability] Re: zooming, porpoising, and goal level

Expand Messages
  • Hugh Beyer
    May 4, 2005


      --- In agile-usability@yahoogroups.com , "Hugh Beyer" <beyer@i...>
      AC:<<I'll posit a slightly extreme position in this post, mostly for
      the sake of discussion, that if you are finding that people's self
      reported goals are unreliable, then you had a lousy Facilitator and
      the requirements gathering people had wax in their ears.
         The opposite statement of the above is that with good
      facilitation, and if the requirements gathering people are alert,
      there are lots of clues spoken out loud in every meeting that tell
      you what's going on at the clam level --- Mind, I recognize that this
      is doing the clam-up work real-time within the group discussion and
      while driving home, but still I claim the information is on the table.

      > So just to clarify what the points of disagreement are, you are
      > that the analysis has to be clam-up, just disagreeing on what
      technique is
      > necessary for doing that analysis?

      egad, I don't see how you drew that conclusion! I posited one
      position and its opposite, the latter with two 'if' statements in it.
      How does that get interpreted as agreement that analysis "has to be"

      Quite the non-opposite. I can't imagine that analysis "has to be"
      clam up (or top-down). I can imagine that clam-level details show
      themselves to be useful.


      Sorry. I thought your paragraph starting “The opposite statement…”  was stating your own point of view—that the clam-level details would still be available in a facilitated requirements gathering meeting.


      > I'd argue in fact that any user-centered
      > design process must be clam-up or it's not UCD. After all, if
      you're not
      > starting with individual users' work, you're not starting with
      users, you're
      > starting with some abstraction.

      I'll let someone else take issue with assertion --- since I'm not a
      UCD person, I don't personally care whether it carries the UCD tag or
      not. I'm only asking whether one gets a good result, and if so, am
      quite fine if all the UCD people in the world break out in hives from
      the manner in which that good result is achieved.


      And this isn’t a UCD list, and the “what is UCD” question is flame war bait anyway, so I’m willing to let it pass. This was simply a perspective I hadn’t thought about before.

      Jeff's question is essentially, can one get a good result middle-up-
      down-with-some-clam-stuff-showing-up-along-the-way (my way), or
      bottom-up (the UCD way), or both? And does it actually matter which
      path is followed, since it seems both seem sensitive to the quality
      of the person doing the work?

      I'm starting to think the quality of the person trumps the method.

      Certainly a good person with a poor process will probably produce a better result than a poor person with a good process every time.



    • Show all 23 messages in this topic