[Sigia-l] the lesser importance of home pages -> moresplashpagefun?

[Stewart Dean]

On 28/12/05 10:39 am, "Listera" <listera at rcn.com> wrote:

> Stewart Dean:
> 
>> For example the technical architect is important to the business strategy
>> (what can be done by when),
> 
> I'm not sure if you are serious or not here.

Very. Engineering is important to a real world architecture project and it's
important to building a web site or delivering, for example, the best
possible mobile phone experience. My views on how this relates to user
experience I've covered elsewhere.
 
>> the programmers have a direct affect on usability (it needs to
>> work seamlessly)
> 
> It's when implementers of executable code (programmers) dabble in
> interface/interaction/usability that we inevitably get into trouble.

The implementation of the user experience once architected has a direct
affect on how usable it is and there is a compromise stage where certain
user experience ideas are reevaluated in relation to what can be done with
in the project life span. Usability is an overall umbrella for the whole
system and all roles affect the usability, for example well constructed
content  can make a site much more usable and vastly improve the user
experience.
> 
>> and the content creators have a direct affect on structure
>> (after all, content is king).
> 
> Like I said, I'm not sure if you're being humorous here.

Are trying to tell me that you don't think that content does not affect the
structure of a site?


>> the mix I'm used to...
> 
> In case it's not clear, my comments aren't simply descriptive of how things
> are currently, but prescriptive of how they should be.
>
> In many corporate settings, for example, the PM is the conductor. And as far
> as Design is concerned that's a travesty. The PM is no more a strategic
> problem solver (my partial definition of a designer) than, say, the
> accountant who signs the checks on a project. (Doesn't mean they are not
> important players, but just that they ought not to be the conductor.)

Well if you're going to be wrong you might as well be wrong with style.
Let's use a real world example, when you build a building then you have
architects and project managers. The same is true when you build a web site.
The term 'conductor' is totally pointless here. On a film you have a
director and a producer - you need someone who shapes the project (director)
and someone who can make sure that it happens (producer). As the 'Designer'
you take the role of shaping the overall experience. I do this but call
myself an information architect TO AVOID CONFUSION. I do everything in your
previous list of a 'Designer' apart from visual design - that is done by a
skilled designer who specialises in that - it enables the end result to be
much better.  Like wise if I'm concerned about having to resource a designer
or maintaining meeting contact reports I can't get on with defining the user
experience.

I have seen folks merge the PM and IA role, I've done it myself, but in my
experience the results are much better if the roles are separated.

In short the best results are achieved by a team of experienced folks who
know their specialists and understand the role of the other team mates. I am
in a band at the moment - I can sing but know there are people who sing
better than me and I can't play keys, bass, guitar and sing at the same
time!

So yes I am also saying how it should be - for a medium to large site a base
team of 4-5 people. How it shouldn't be is one person doing multiple roles
to a so-so level, at least not for medium to large projects.

Stew Dean