"You can't please everyone"
That saying echoed throughout my head while reading chapter 3. Hoekman puts emphasis on having knowledge of the situation when deciding whether or not a certain design needs to be redesigned. He states that a designer need not worry about the opinion of a small subgroup if the masses are getting along with the product just fine. Anybody could sit and find features of a design that are, in that individual's opinion, flawed.
To be honest, I wish that we had been told to read this chapter before starting project 2. I feel that we, as a class, were baited into picking a piece of exercise equipment, finding what we did not like, and brainstorming a generic redesign for the machine, when all that really matters is if the masses are able to efficiently use the machine, which they can. Truth be told, this would have made project 2 A LOT more difficult so I'm thankful for that, but at the end of the day, Hoekman makes what my partner and I thought to be good and thoughtful ideas about the machine look irrelevant and uptight.
What Hoekman means by having a situation-centric approach is a lot what I have been saying; redesigning a certain product needs to have a lot more of a cause than just pleasing the few naysayers. All that matters is if the majority can smoothly operate the product, whatever it may be.
As for the methods, I would have to say that Shadowing seems like most viable of the listed methods. Shadowing is also the closest to what my partner and I did for the project. Retrospectively speaking, I would have shadowed more than one subject just to increase the depth of data received.
Remember don't focus on being baited. You're playing the whole game of design and you will make mistakes and there are many nuisances and different things you can do. It's also great that you are reflecting on what could have been done better and what you will do better next time, and as always if you want to know more - ask questions.
ReplyDelete