[Sigia-l] IA system components - add to the list!

[Christina Wodtke]

> Of course you did not. Saying 'people refute something' means they
> have successfully done so.

not necessarily, though sometimes:


refute
SYLLABICATION:re·fute
PRONUNCIATION:AUDIO: r-fyt     KEY
TRANSITIVE VERB:Inflected forms: re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute
testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.
ETYMOLOGY:Latin reftre. See bhau- in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS:re·futa·bili·ty (r-fyt-bl-t, rfy-t-) -NOUN
re·futa·ble (r-fyt-bl, rfy-t-) -ADJECTIVE
re·futa·bly -ADVERB
re·futer -NOUN


so is anyone going to say anything on this list, or is it going to degrade
into a semantics game? Is this a list for pure theory, or are there a few
working professionals around?

In my experience, stringent highly structured methodologies breakdown and
get thrown out, while highly flexible toolkits of skills and techniques are
better suited to the wide variety of problems that come our way.

FOR EXAMPLE when a client came to Carbon IQ loooong ago, we put together a
strategy of research and design and testing. When they cut the budget in
half, rather than throwing put the research and testing (as they suggested),
we moved to a faster cheaper technique and were able to learn key
information that shaped the end product. I don't think we could have done it
if we had "a way" but I know we were able to do a good job because we had a
toolkit.

I have a strong prejudice against the methodologies that were hastily
assembled and previously adhered to in the late nineties by internet
consultancies, as they often locked their clients into process that did not
reflect the needs of the business nor the users. Adapted methodologies are
often quite good, such as some of the work done by folks infusing
user-centered techniques into rational (such as those seen in Larry
Constantine's For Use).