Never poker 100 gratuites poker en ligne sans logiciel jeu video poker gratuites poker a telecharger regle poker casino…

Still, we bump up against the edges of our design sandbox often. We’re often confronted with UI decisions that strike at key elements of the client’s business. What is “right” for the design may alter (slightly, radically) the product’s definition and may therefore also change (slightly, radically) the core offering of the business. We obviously can’t make decisions like these in a vacuum, and I think that part of Alan’s point is that we’ve also struggled to pivot the battleship of the business on the fulcrum of the UI.

So, what’s the answer? In our consulting engagements, we’ve had success in winning over key executives with our design rationale, research, and our method. Of course, in order to do so, we often become assimilated into the organizational borg, agreeing to bend to its rules in the short term and making relatively minor impact on its priorities and time-tables. This approach is distasteful to Alan because it rings of appeasement and he’s a lot less willing to go along with strategies that, in his heart, he knows are wrong. Hence his insurgent approach.

Eight years on, I’ve seen organizations in which nothing other than an insurgency would work, but I’ve also seen “business people” associated with our projects move on and up to positions of more and more influence. Like Brandon Schauer said on another blog, it’s really all about reading the situation and determining the right approach, but there’s no question that we’re much more successful when we’re allied with savvy, powerful people on the business side.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting take, Peter.

Design is not art, we do it because we are paid and we do it for a customer who is paying for it. There is craft and skill in what we do but we do not decide how products are created without a brief. Doing it with a personal brief would be art and not design.

There is a clear difference that Alan seems to be ignoring. Its always good to be evangelical about your design practice but without a level of transparency that all stakeholders can see then we are creating ivory towers – and that is a real problem.

Ignoring the customer (and I mean the customer not the consumer) or assuming he/she doesn’t get it is not a good idea at all.

Business owners are craftspeople too.

It’s easy to espouse big change. The deeper challenge is to implement it in situations with real constraints and entrenched processes, and the true test of a set of ideas is in seeing them succeed in these situations.

I’ve posted more on this at http://www.portigal.com/blog/you-say-you-want-a-revolution/

Steve Jobs’ success with the iPod was not just about a gorgeous product, but about how people will buy music and how Apple will get paid for it. The b-word.

The attidude that Cooper advocates is, pay me for I am brilliant, and will eventually create something of value, though I cannot tell you what or when. There is a limited number of people who can pull this off. People with this attitude who expect to be rewarded are mostly setting up to be disappointed and bitter.

Ultimately a good commercial product has to be a good business proposition, or it won’t succeed. Steve Jobs provides another example there: the NeXT cube and workstation, which were brilliantly designed and a business disaster.

My fear is that Cooper looks on both businesspeople and engineers as necessary evils to executing his vision. Whenever any specialist says, “Everything will go better if my specialty is in charge,” it gives me the willies. That was certainly his claim at the beginning of the decade, and I think he’s made some progress, but essentially believes that.