Kujo_3_I

I could not agree more with the author and his section on responsive time. Over the summer I sat in on a meeting where I had my internship at, almost the whole meeting was about how fast they could get this program to work. It was loan checking software that had to contact a bank to find a loan and also the government watch list then bring it all back with personal information and loans available along with interest... there are about twenty steps to this whole process but the user only see's three or so. When they started to talk about time it was a millisecond here and a fourth of a second there... they were trying to keep it all under three seconds if I remember right. It just goes to show you that people really are thinking about time and how much it will take a user to proform actions and have the code and server proccess them.

James Frye 2 _1

Compared to other design methods, having a strong skill to design activity centered designs is vital. After all, interaction design is just that, an activity. Pretty much everything that is designed is designed for some activity. Though it is important to have the other design approaches as well, activity centered design is the most vital to have, in my opinion.

Chris_2_I

I liked the 'Problems with Problems' section of this chapter. The author discusses that designers usually overly complicate their flawed products and rethink the whole thing. He states that 'sometimes a button problem is just a button problem.' I like that he points out that sometimes its alright to just let some things be, not to break the entire project down. I think this is how we learn to become better designers. I'm sure an employer may not totally agree with this. I usually learn the most from things that don't work as well as they should. The author stresses to find simple solutions because they can indicate much larger ones.

Kirk_2_Q

What I took most from this chapter was the concept that strong design utilizes a combination of the four design approaches. For example, the book uses the automobile as an example of an activity-centered design. But as we demand more synergy between our mobile devices, music players, and cars, our cars are now being designed with the users in mind more than ever, and we have more information available to us as we drive than ever before. Meanwhile, the car still manages the systems necessary to drive, however, users are now more aware of what's going on in their cars and can identify problems quicker than cars from the past.

Here's a question I was considering while writing this. What type of design approach would be used for creating a car that drives itself, with the user only inputting the destination?

Cami_2_I

A few people have already mentioned this, but I wanted to throw it out there as well: I believe that every interactive design involves all four approaches. While one approach may be dominant, you can't design something for a user without thinking of the activities involved; you can't design for a system without thinking of the individual parts of the system; you can't create a genius design without thinking of the user that will enjoy your design; and the list goes on.

I also thought it was interesting that they discussed an iPod when talking about genius design because the new iTunes has a genius feature that suggests music the user may like and creates playlists based off of a song chosen by the user. This is another great example of how two approaches can be melded together (genius and user-centered).

Scott_2_I

The most important thing to remember when creating a product no matter what it is, is to make something that people will continue to want to use. You always want to be more innovative, and more useful than your competitors. So, I agree that you want to mix all of the ideas, that the book mentioned. Keeping ahead of the rest of the "pack" is the most important thing you can do. You want to have a simple design that most everyone can understand, but you also want to have something that is new and more convenient. In whatever you design, you have to make sure that there is some reason that everyone would want to use your product. Now a days, it has been combining different technologies, like cell phones, cameras, mp3 players, internet, and even GPS all into one. Just keep one step ahead of your competitors.

Tetta__2__I

According to Saffer, the author of the book, "genius design is when the designer relies on his or her own experience and skill to design, without any input from users. It's done by designers who either don't have the resources or the inclination or temperament to do research." (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jul2006/id20060728_334148_page_3.htm)
To me, the term "genius design" sounds like impossibly successful products created by accidental creations that may include some luck. I still think that research in fields to make new products is necessary in the order to produce well-made products.

Christian_2_I

At the end of this chapter, it comments on how designers mix all these different approaches to come up with the best end result. This is something I definitely agree with as I don't really see one approach as overwhelmingly coming off as the front runner. I think it's important to come at the task from different angles and try to consider all the various types of users and possibilities prior to completing the project. Focusing completely on the user of completely on the system could produce bad results. This makes me think of something like the iPhone. If Apple were to mainly focus on the user, should it would be something nice to hold and look at, and probably easy to use as well. But if they ignored the system, the phone wouldn't be capable of all it can do. Vice versa is true as well. Focusing only on the system could have made the phone too complicated for the target audience. Every task and project should approached from multiple angles by multiple people to produce the best result.

JustinG_2_Q

The author states that Genius Design is how most interaction design is done today and that designers use their 'best judgement' as to what users want while they are designing.  The problem I see with Genius Design is that the lack of User input could seriously hurt the final project.  Although designers may feel that they have the skill and knowledge to produce a great working product for users, I feel that user input is a necessity. (Even for Apple)  If the users of a product are unhappy and unable to produce the results they wish, the product will fail.

I believe that all designers should use user input as much as they possibly can.  Thoughts?  (Take in to consideration the Vista OS)

Justin Shimp__2__I

This chapter seems to really focus on the design process in a very abstract way. Its a bit daunting and confusing to analyze without many real world situations to help back up the logic. The processes seem logical and seem to get really complex especially with the number of people involved with the design and usability of one certain product. It relaxes me because I would like to partcipate in this field but would not like to have the burden of being the one decision maker for the project.

Genius design is something pretty interesting in itself. it seems rare. I think the iphone and ipod touch are genius design tool with a pretty good place for expandability in a technological sense. they seem to have hit the nail on the head with user control now they need to over come hardware limitations to create more features for the users. I think wacom tablets have started to accomplish this genius design concept well with their clinq tablets. You get to see what you are drawing on the computer and with your wacom pen you can have pressure sensitivity and a feel of a real brush. For any person who is interested in computer art a wacom tablet is the most well respected name in order to get your ideas out onto the computer in a very effective and organic way.

Evan_2_I

I think whenever we start a project we think about almost all of the approaches that Saffer mentions in the chapter. We probably use all or most of them, but I think we all end up orienting our work to the user. Saffer had user-centered design as one of the approaches, but I think that all of the approaches are user-oriented to a certain extent. The User-Oriented approach he described in the chapter is probably the extreme, where users usually decide pretty much everything. But users are usually who decide what sinks and what floats, no matter what approach is taken. Apple may not do any user testing or research, but if something goes wrong with one of their products, they'll come out with a new version based on user feedback.

Bryanna_2_I

The author of the book comments that using a system based design may be seen as "too robotic" by some designers. I actually thought that a system design would be the least robotic, because it takes into account all of the components of the design, rather than emphasizing the individual aspects. Gestalt said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" and I think this is especially applicable to interaction design. The system design not only takes into account the requirements of goals of the system or interface, but the goals of the users, and the goals of the designers. If one of these parts is not working in tune with the others, than the whole system fails. In this respect, I feel like system design would be the most complicated to work with just starting out, but I think that it would be the best way to achieve a goal that is pleasing for all parties involved.