Comments on: What we do

By: Vicky Teinaki

Vicky Teinaki — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:36:53 +0000

Why ‘product design’ rather than ‘interaction design’? To me the latter is more to do with physical rather than digital (even though Kim Goodwin suggests otherwise). If you’re aiming more at digital then Ixd + coding, otherwise Product Design + Engineering (as Dave suggested).

By: uidesignguide

uidesignguide — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:38:17 +0000

I might add one / two more bubbles on to that “Strategy.” An experienced UX person can provide strategic insight into what direction a companies product should be headed,

Maybe think of strategy as a big circle surrounding the 3.

By: Disha Al Baqui

Disha Al Baqui — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:42:17 +0000

I’m part of a team of 6 with a product manager and a community manager. Often I find that my job requires me to generate new ideas from conversations with users in the market, design parts of the product (the visual and interaction sections) based on those ideas and being a developer also contribute code to that feature. I would probably put myself in a box that spans both the circles, however i don’t know what my title would be. Any ideas?

By: Pradeep Nayar

Pradeep Nayar — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:41:57 +0000

I just created something similar at my organization as I was trying to convince upper management to start a UX team. As I iterated through the process, I realized there is a 4th sphere. As UX professionals our goal is not just to help the product side to understand what they need to create but mainly to represent the end-user in all parts of the product development.

We don’t want to get pigeon holed into thinking as a product owner. We are there to stand up for the end-user in the entire process. The user is the 4th circle and UX is what brings users, product owners & coders together.

By: Uday Gajendar

Uday Gajendar — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:21:13 +0000

I really admire the basic simplicity of it, and I get what you’re trying to convey (being at the converging heart of it all), but I always keep coming back to the Eames venn diagram which pretty much sums it up for me and is frankly very difficult to improve upon IMHO:

http://www.ghostinthepixel.com/?p=103

Of course, substitute his words with “engineering” and “QA” and “Biz Dev”, etc. all those various parties of competing/conflicting concerns. But what I really admire about Eames’ is the note Eames wrote that these areas are not static but always growing and evolving (hence the organic, sketchy nature of his diagram) Also, his point that “adding more clients add to the relationship in a positive and constructive way” which is vital IMHO.

By: Dave Malouf

Dave Malouf — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:08:10 +0000

I think this is a standard model for many, but for the last 5 years or so, I think many agencies and definitely many internals are also idea generating arms of the process/organization. And by this I mean that design research is generative in nature, and helps or informs the creation of ideas.

further, I think “code” should be substituted with “engineering & production” so that it can include non-software environments of interaction design as well.

– dave