Leah Buley talked about generative design at the South by Southwest Interactive conference today [in March 2009]. Buley feels design methods are lacking in the set of professional tools we use for software development: “We don’t have so many good, reliable, repeatable design techniques.” I agree with her.
Buley tells how, in her first design session at Adaptive Path, she was handed a pen and paper, and told to sketch. The point was “to crank out a lot of ideas in a short time.” That’s what generative design is all about: saturating the design space with ideas. Design programs teach generative design, but there’s no generative design taught in programs for developers, QA staff, technical communicators, product management, or marketing.
There are already several design methods for software development teams to choose from, including Buley’s wonderful grab bag. Others I know of are Five Sketches™ (obviously) and Design Studio, both of which focus on the complete process of producing a design, start to finish, with all its challenges. Microsoft’s Bill Buxton told the UPA 2007 conference that he insists on generative design, and I’d love to see that in action. Each method differs slightly, but they all work because….
Why do they all work? Because of generative design. Generative design addresses what Buley calls her “dirty secret.” She freely confesses, about her design work before Adaptive Path: “I had very little confidence that what I was presenting as the design was in fact the one, optimal solution to the problem.” My experience teaching Five Sketches™ tells me that once you’ve participated in a generative-design process, you’ll know that you can have that confidence.
A related question: when will computer science programs teach Basic Design Methods to developers?
One Reply to “Generative design vs. Five Sketches™”
Having heard Leah Buley today, I can say that her session was one of the best I attended at SXSW this year. It happened back-to-back with Jared Spool’s session, which said basically the same thing: use the techniques of user-centered design, but don’t be dogmatic about it. What’s important is what Buley called quiddity, which is getting the end product to a state of not just usability but to match the intended vision. I think it’s a sign of moving our profession to the next stage in the maturity model.
Comments are closed.