[Sigia-l] Junk science or just lazy?

[Dmitry Nekrasovski]

Actually, I think the data in the report gives a good indication of
how little known UX-specific terms are compared to non-UX-specific
terms (even if the report's conclusions seem to ignore this):

"In terms of the relative strengths of each UX topic, the analysts
seem focused on organizing information; the top two topics are content
management (25.8%) and information management (25%), with knowledge
management coming at #4 (11.9%). So it's surprising that information
architecture checked in at a low 2.6%."

Well, actually, it's not surprising, considering that topics like CM
and KM are well known outside the still-small circle of UX devotees.

In general, some of the conclusions of the report make one wonder if
the author(s) ever escape the comfortable confines of the IA/UX echo
chamber. Take this passage, for example:

"Forrester appears relatively strong in areas that are relatively new,
such as experience design (2% versus 0.7%), interaction design (2.1%
versus 0.2%), interface design (2.5% versus 0.9%), SEO (2.8% versus
0.5%), UCD (2.7% versus 0.2%), and web analytics (8.4% versus 3.8%)."

Last time I checked, UCD has been around since the mid-1980's -
describing it as "relatively new" seems like a bit of a stretch.

Dmitry

On 8/10/07, Eric Reiss <elr at e-reiss.com> wrote:
> The Achilles Heel in the current report is that none of us really
> know how much (or little) the folks outside our precious community
> actually use these particular words and concepts - including "UX". If
> people don't use these words, then they won't appear in a search.