Talk:User-centered design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Well that was a painful learning curve, bogus and SEO marketing citations removed.

========[edit]

Improvement Needed[edit]

This page is an awful mess.

The whole thing needs to be re-written with the relevant ISO standards connected.

I have made few changes in the article by adding some missing citations and adding a section to describe user-centered design process.Some more actions needed to make this article better are:
  1. Move purpose section under user-centered design process, as it is just an example of a phase of the user-centered design process.
  2. Add missing citations for subsections about elements, rhetorical situations, and analysis tools.
  3. Improve the structure of the article.

I also propose deletion of the sections on purpose ,elements and rhetorical that have been citied from [1] which doesnt meet wikipedia guidelines.These sections have been paraphrased and should be removed or should be cited from reliable sources.--Anoop195 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

========[edit]

It's a little embarrassing to point this out but User-centered design is spelt wrong the spelling is User-centred design - ISO 13407:1999 Human-centred design processes for interactive systems now revised as ISO 9241-210:2010 Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. All the Legal Frameworks spell it as Centred so do RFP and RFI contractual documents.

How do we get this updated is there a super user who decides?

The Introduction for ISO 9241-210:2010(E);

Introduction

Human-centred design is an approach to interactive systems development that aims to make systems usable and useful by focusing on the users, their needs and requirements, and by applying human factors/ergonomics, and usability knowledge and techniques. This approach enhances effectiveness and efficiency, improves human well-being, user satisfaction, accessibility and sustainability; and counteracts possible adverse effects of use on human health, safety and performance.

There is a substantial body of human factors/ergonomics and usability knowledge about how human-centred design can be organized and used effectively. This part of ISO 9241 aims to make this information available to help those responsible for managing hardware and software design and re-design processes to identify and plan effective and timely human-centred design activities.

The human-centred approach to design described in this part of ISO 9241 complements existing systems design approaches. It can be incorporated in approaches as diverse as object-oriented, waterfall and rapid application development.

The principles of human-centred design and the related activities have not changed substantially since ISO 13407 was produced and have been validated by ten years of application. This part of ISO 9241 reflects this by making requirements as well as recommendations. --Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlsmithux (talkcontribs) 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

========[edit]

This article fails to cite one of the most widely accepted definitions and references for UCD - the ISO standard ISO 13407: Human-centred design process. --Lkantrov (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkantrov (talkcontribs) 15:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This article, along with the article about 'User centered design' needs more reference to the study of Anthropology and Ethnography and its application throughout the design process. UCD focuses on the need to understand physical or cognitive properties of an individual or group, or of a social behavior specific to humanity relative to products, services, interactions, experiences, etc. 'Human centered Design' is a more appropriate title --K.Weigelt March 27, 2008 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.138.227.10 (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC) This page was blanked soon after creation by its creator, but I can't honestly see any problem with the info, although the article could possibly be moved to a better name. It's not copyvio as far as I can tell. -- Graham :) 23:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

========[edit]

should this page have a link to human-centered computing for contrast?

========[edit]

"human-centered design" redirects to this page. i propose removing this redirect and adding a page for "human-centered design." although the two terms are often used interchangeably, they are in my mind substantially distinct. "user-centered" implies an eventual end user for the design, whereas "human-centered" includes the designer. futhermore, not all designers design for "use". in my experience, there are also important distinctions made between the two terms depending on disciplinary perspective. "human-centered computing" is a kind of "human-centered design". "user-centered design", meanwhile, is a term used commonly in business, but not a term used heavily by designers I know.


========[edit]

The following paragraph needs work : "The chief difference from other interface design philosophies is that user-centered design tries to bend and structure the functioning of a user interface around how people can, want or need to work, rather than the opposite way around."

It isn't at all clear what the phrase "rather than the opposite way around" means here : what is the opposite of "tries to bend and structure the functioning of a user interface around how people can, want or need to work" - NOT structure the interface around how people need to work? -- Agreed this is awkward and a bit unclear. How about something simpler like "The chief difference from other interface design philosophies is that user-centered design tries to structure a user interface around how people naturally work, rather than requiring users to learn how the interface works." - BMcCarthy 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC) (I think I got the time right!)

========[edit]

The following paragraph could be expanded: "While user-centered design is often viewed as being focused on the development of computer and paper interfaces, the field has a much wider application. The design philosophy has been applied to a diverse range of user interactions, from car dashboards to service processes (such as the end-to-end experience of visiting a restaurant, including interactions such as being seated, choosing a meal, ordering food, paying the bill etc).

I'd like to suggest appending something like: "In product design, this is sometimes referred to as the "out of the box experience," referring to all tasks the user must complete from first opening the box the product is shipped in, through unpacking, reading the directions, assembly, first use and continuing use." In expanding this paragraph, I might also consider removing the parentheses around the restaurant example. - BMcCarthy 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


=========[edit]

I agree that the article is not in a good state. It lacks crucial definitions and key nuances of the user-centered design concept.

  1. The article fails to provide a well-articulated definition and motivation of the concept with reliable references.
  2. The User-Centered design concept was coined in Don Norman's lab. He motivates it in his book Design of Everyday Things. First, the need and emotions part does not effectively brings out the issues of usability, the importance of design and the needs of users. Also, the article is incorrectly structured in the way that the Needs paragraph is mentioned at the last. It does not flow properly.

I plan to provide the following changes:

  1. Better Definition: As mentioned before, the definition does not have any sought of reference. I plan to rewrite the definition according the the following source: Source: Henry, Shawn Lawton. Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design. Madison, WI: ET\Lawton, 2007. ISBN 978-1430319528
  2. Provide better needs and emotions from Don Norman's Design of Everyday Things. We also plan to move Needs and Emotions up and keep it after the definition. I believe that would provide a better structure to the article. Source: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2187809

Jaswa003 (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Models and Approaches[edit]

Under this section, the article mentions about the principles that ensure a design is user centered, but it has not been cited nor it is very well elaborated.
I will cite this part of article and will create a user-centered design process sub section which is missing in this article
Reference:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2003/ucd
https://www.usability.gov/what-and-why/user-centered-design.html
--Anoop195 (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

The External Links section is not for self-promotion. See Wikipedia:External Links Guide --Ronz 14:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The link features an overview together with a short introduction of the 13 most popular methods of user-centered design. These 13 methods are the result of a survey of around 150 practitioners of user centered design. So I think this is also highly valuable and can not be seen as self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExperientalMarketer (talkcontribs) 11:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Nor is the External links section for blogs. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing focus citations?[edit]

The focus section, though interesting, ignores the very origins of user-centered design in the 80s. I marked it with "citation needed", but figure the "last decade" phrase should just be removed. I certainly don't know of any shift in thinking or application, though I see people new to the field asserting that they are making this shift without knowledge that this type of perspective has always existed. --Ronz 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed the "citation needed", so I removed all reference to any supposed change in focus. --Ronz 15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Consolidation Needed[edit]

There are two UCD pages...one with a hyphen, and one without...these should be combined.

There are also a number of related pages/topics that should be linked somehow:

Lkantrov 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and more. Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages gives details on how to do a merge. Placing the merge proposal links is fairly easy to do.
As for the cross-linking, they are to some degree through internal links within the articles, with "See also" sections, and through categories. It certainly could be improved.
Techniques for creating a User Centered Design is a strange article from my perspective. I added a couple of tags to it. There's a chance that everything in the article is already covered elsewhere. --Ronz 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. User Centered Design, however, refers frequently to "documents" as the object of design, while User-centered design is more general, referring sometimes to software. I think the resulting merged article should be general and explicitly mention it can apply to documents, software, signage, or any artifact meant to be used in some way by a person. BMcCarthy 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that consolidation is useful, because the term does exist philosophically above the uses, and I think the hyphenated version is just a convention of use within a particular discourse community rather than a change in the term's meaning or use. BUT, we need to understand that the term does carry nuances of difference within each area: software, hardware, architecture, industrial design, technical writing, web design, etc. I think a single article that starts at the philosophical level then proceeds to discuss UCD within each of those contexts would be the way to go. Mark David Anthony 17:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously the articles should be merged. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Designing Pleasurable Products[edit]

Moved from article for discussion. Neither the book nor the author are notable, nor is any source provided. Without a source, this looks like a NPOV violation:

Other books in a similar vein include "Designing Pleasurable Products" by Patrick W. Jordan, in which the author suggests that different forms of pleasure should be included in a user-centered approach in addition to traditional definitions of usability.

--Ronz 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ronz strikes again with an overzealous cut! I support this link being included. Just read the book description on this Amazon link. Also check out the "Buy Together Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things by Donald A. Norman today!" section Amazon Link To Book. Ronz, you state "neither the book nor the author are notable". When does a book become such? Are there any guides-line other than Ronz's feeling that a book or author become notable? -Buttysquirrel 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. --Ronz 17:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
ronz, don't be a douche. The article is tech biased; if the source would tip it to other direction, it's good. I mean, I'm not arguing for or against the book; I haven't read it or heard about it, but, well, if it exists and is relevant, it's good for the article. --Sigmundur (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

People keep forgetting that verifiability is one of Wikipedia:Five pillars, while notability isn't. Given that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, deleting the link on the basis of notability is spurious. On the other hand, WP:NPOV requires us to document significant viewpoints in reliable sources, so I say this link is a must because of the raised concerns of technical bias in the article.Diego (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Overly focused on software and 'documents'[edit]

Coming fresh to this article I found it strangely focused on software design (or at least 'interface' design) and design of 'documents'. Are these 'documents' meant to be screen-based ones? A lot of the entry about 'document' design seems common information design principles, except some of the 'legibility' section. I think someone (a web-page designer?) has written this from their perspective, ignoring wider applications and relevance of user-centred-design. Notwithstanding the section on 'Focus on more than just computers . . ', this article could do with a broader orientation and less-blinkered view. At least, the intro shouldn't just be limited to 'interface or document' design. I also think the Jordan book (see entries above) is very relevant to user-centred design. Bristolian46 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

UCD works for more than just web sites![edit]

Quite annoying, the "elements of UCD" were obviously some web site examples; they spoke of the product as "document"; come on, if I'm designing a truck, I don't really consider "bold and italics" in my design, do I? Product design isn't just Flash and Javascript. --Sigmundur (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Diagram[edit]

Maybe a diagram could be beneficial. I have created an educational infographic illustrating the iterative cycle of the user centred design process and released it under CC license. This is the infographic: http://lh4.ggpht.com/_h6EgYdPOxGo/S_78gXn0qCI/AAAAAAAABl4/1wf9AZB-bHE/User-Centred-Design.jpg

Feel free to include it if you think it's beneficial for the article.Jazzpazz (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the CC license by which you published the image makes it incompatible with the Wikipedia preferred licenses. The Non-Commercial clause makes it not a "free cultural work" as per the definition in Licensing policy.
On a technical note, the diagram is too low resolution to be read with comfort.
If you could provide the SVG source code and release it as CC-BY-SA, I think the diagram would be a nice addition. Diego Moya (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
ok, this is interesting. Sorry, I'm new to wikipedia and have yet to figure out how to do things right. Maybe you can explain how to provide the SVG source code? I have the image as PDF and JPEG and Adobe Illustrator file. I'd be happy to release it as CC-BY-SA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.58.78 (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
oops, sorry that last comment was me but I didn't notice that I wasn't logged in. Sorry for being a n00b.Jazzpazz (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You should be able to "export" or "save as SVG" the Adobe Ilulustrator file from your graphic editor of choice. The file produced is the "source code" I referred to, since the SVG format is a readable open documented standard. You can then upload that SVG file to Wikimedia Commons under a Free license. You could also create a PNG high resolution (at least 300ppp) version of your design for bonus points ;-) Diego Moya (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Analysis tools[edit]

The article is wonderful. What is bad, is that the section 5 Analysis tools used in user-centered design - does not obey the UCD principles, that is it contains large texts you can't grasp the idea, and it would be better to split those sections into chunks! --Yaroslav Nikitenko (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Welcome to Galaxy Consulting!". www.galaxyconsulting.net.