Re: [Sigia-l] Making assumptions

Jonathan Baker-Bates:

> I meant that I could prevent the results from being interpreted by others in
> ways I did not want.

Yes, this is the key: 90% of the time I'm shown
tests/validations/controls/research/etc it is a *combination* of multiple
factors whose inter-relationships are often unknown, unknowable or plain
contradictory. But because it *may* contain an element of 'truth' the entire
result is accepted consciously or subconsciously. That's not how scientific
method works. 

> So am I to understand that with the exception of multivariate tests, you
> would not consider design research at all?

I'm all for immersing oneself in the subject at hand in as many ways as
practical. But using voodoo science to 'prove' a point and calling it a
test/validation/control is counterproductive, especially if your own money
is on the line. I've noticed that when people's income is directly related
to actual results they tend to shy away from aggressively promoting such
'research'.

>> Proof is, obviously, in the pudding of achieving the intent/business goal.
> I'm not sure it is obvious, is it?

What I'm saying is that people, in general, may bitch about Apple's 'opaque'
design approach, but can hardly question its actual outcome. Results speak
louder than intent and academic/commercial mumbo jumbo.

-- 
Ziya

It depends.
If it didn't, you'd be out of a job.


------------
A Summit 2010
April 7-11, 2010
Pre Conference Seminars: April 7-8
IA Summit: April 9-11
Hyatt Regency
Phoenix, AZ  
-----
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments

Searchable Archive at http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: [email protected]
Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l