Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Anthony Colfelt

Anthony Colfelt — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:31:34 GMT

“Postrel points out that “’form follows emotion’ has supplanted ‘form follows function’.” How else do you explain the success of the iMac, Volkswagen Beetle, and the Michael Graves Toaster at Target?”

Sorry, this is just rubbish. Of course form still follows function. If the iMac, Volkswagen Beetle etc didn’t function exceptionally well, they’d have been a flop.

The notion that people value aesthetics more now than they did then is a misnoma. People can afford aesthetics now, where before this was a luxury. As the population becomes more affluent and companies cotton on to the fact that people have always wanted aesthetics, goods become cheaper and more aesthetic.

People in poorer countries (or westerners earlier this century) couldn’t care less about aesthetics. If something works, and they can afford it, then that’s enough for them. If aesthetic goods were cheap enough, they’d have those instead, because the desire for beauty and individuality is something that runs deeper than trend. It roots in the way humans value themselves. This isn’t transient, in my opinion.

Anthony Colfelt — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:43:08 GMT

Todd > I don’t know how common it is to expect interaction designers to code. As a general rule, I think they don’t at the moment. Perhaps the industry will trend that way, but I don’t know. I’m trying to write for the now, however.
Christian > Stay tuned for part II. That’s when we talk about personality traits…
Patrick > Thanks for catching that… oops!
Alexander > This isn’t supposed to suggest you find one person that can do all these things, but rather that these are the skills that are out there. When hiring, you need to analyse what you need before choosing a candidate with some or one of these. The next part will clarify this point.

Anthony Colfelt — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:48:59 GMT

Thanks for the feedback and thoughts. The second part is still not fully baked yet, so I’ll encorporate these notions.

Anthony Colfelt — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:39:11 GMT

Terry, I think you made some interesting points about the further breakdown of skills, although I think everyone has a different take on whether a researcher is a tester or testing is research… or if graphic design is visual design etc. It’s a blurry line that is influenced by your project and business context. Larger orgs will be able to accomodate the finer grade distinction in staff. Smaller ones won’t – but that’s all the next part of the article.

As far as Agile is concerned, I’m conflicted. I’ve worked a lot in Agile environments and they don’t accomodate strategic thinking well. Whether that’s long term planning or architecting a holistic experience, there simply isn’t provision for that stage in any of the prescribed methodologies. Often doing any form of user centric design requires that you break the dogma of Agile process prescriptions. Or maybe I’ve just never been involved in a properly run agile project… In any case, context is again key as you’ve pointed out. This is the thrust of part two (as well as the all important personality axis).

Anthony Colfelt — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:53:56 GMT

I didn’t mean to make an impression that you need someone dedicated to each skill, but rather that you should aim to have the skills you need covered by the various staff you hire. These definitions are a means to divide the things we do into buckets, not to state the sole domain of any one person. My personal opinion is that you need at least some level of skill in each of these areas to do good design. I like Christina’s role definitions: ” * Conductor/leader * Finder-outer of user needs and behavior * Structural designer (IA, IxD) * Interface and visual designer * Realizer in the native web format (web dev.)”. This presents a nice abstraction from established role and job titles. It encourages us break our thinking out of them and I think that’s healthy. What skills you need has everything to do with your context… and that’s part II. :-)

Anthony Colfelt — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:31:00 GMT

Thanks Gabe, fixed it. :-)