| diary | | | geek interests | | | publications | | | projects | | | web |
| 11/03/2003 05:47:00 PM |
I'm not going to say who said this since I don't have permission to quote, but as much as many people think along the same line, to actually hear it be articulated into prose was a rather satisfying experience for me. :)
The statement's premise is to the effect that "usability comes first", that if an architectural decision doesn't immediately yield usable results, then the correct response is to change the architecture. This is incorrect. It confuses means and ends. Of course we need to end up with usable systems, but usability as such is not our goal, merely a necessary quality of the final product. Innovation is the goal. And our fundamental methodological belief is that consistent architecture is the way to accomplish innovation in this domain. If usability were the final goal, we would be tweaking web sites, not smelting copper. Usability without innovation represents failure. Innovation without usability merely means we aren't done yet. |
|
Oh and on your question about whether people really think in terms of "innovation", or rather "Let's build the best system possible"? I think in the commercial world people tend to think the latter since they're constantly bounded by factors beyound their control (such as the need to make profit). In the research and development realm that is less likely and people actually do think in terms of how to build the system "right" from the ground up. I guess "right" in this case translates to possibly a religious thing, but when people have those strong beliefs they tend to either come out with something just overly obscure or something so elegant that it does bring about "innovation". :) Anyone want to play a beer game where we shot gun a can everytime we hear the word "innovation" ? ;)
(731) dJsLiM - 12/16/2003 12:04:59 PM [ 65.216.205.129 ]
I agree with you on the overuse of the term "innovative". It's not intended here as a buzz word, but more as what one would like to consider something that can cause a paradigm shift. For example the "Personal Computer" paradigm shift that Apple brought about. The invention of the concept of a "bit" and then a "byte", etc... I don't believe there was any comment made about whether usability could or could not be measured, however. You're also absolutely right that usability can inspire people to produce "innovative" things, and you're also right that "innovation" may have to be reconized as such by others. I'm not really sure we're arguing about anything apart from the fact that perhaps people in general are jaded from hearing the term "innovation" all the time. :)
(730) dJsLiM - 12/16/2003 11:57:08 AM [ 65.216.205.129 ]
Sorry to strike a discordant note, but "innovative" is one of the most overused words in the computing field (together with "intuitive"), to the point that it's pretty much meaningless. Besides, one can measure usability somewhat - there are metrics, tools and substantial research in this area. How can one ever know if one's approach is innovative until after it's been created and others have evaluated it? Do people really think in terms of "innovation", or rather "Let's build the best system possible"? (From which, perhaps, we can later say the results are innovative). Besides, usability can inspire people to produce something "innovative" (agh! there I've said it) - must one always come before the other? :-)
(727) Saryal - 11/25/2003 6:45:10 PM [ 81.86.154.134 ]
that is deep.... amen.
(724) rimo - 11/11/2003 3:14:09 PM [ 151.201.247.36 ] |
