<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thinking about thinking</title>
	<link>http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/2006/thinking-about-thinking</link>
	<description>Information architecture, interaction design and much more</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:49:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Graham Storrs</title>
		<link>http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/2006/thinking-about-thinking#comment-664</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham Storrs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/2006/thinking-about-thinking#comment-664</guid>
		<description>Donna,

I wish you hadn't mentioned 'deep thought'. I've now got to spend the rest of the day trying to get the disturbing image of Shane in the shower out of my mind!

If you're looking for more references, there's a paper I gave at an air traffic control conference in about 1992. The paper was all about prototyping for requirements capture and it suggests that producing low-fidelity proptotypes allows designers to be more creative and to explore (and then try out) ideas that might, prima facie, seem too risky. However, the point the paper makes is that using a method that is appropriate to the system development task actually gives designers the space and the tools to do the thinking they need - both about the 'real' issues behind the requirements (my personal hobby-horse) and the optimal solutions.

Cheers,

Graham.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Donna,</p>
<p>I wish you hadn&#8217;t mentioned &#8216;deep thought&#8217;. I&#8217;ve now got to spend the rest of the day trying to get the disturbing image of Shane in the shower out of my mind!</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re looking for more references, there&#8217;s a paper I gave at an air traffic control conference in about 1992. The paper was all about prototyping for requirements capture and it suggests that producing low-fidelity proptotypes allows designers to be more creative and to explore (and then try out) ideas that might, prima facie, seem too risky. However, the point the paper makes is that using a method that is appropriate to the system development task actually gives designers the space and the tools to do the thinking they need - both about the &#8216;real&#8217; issues behind the requirements (my personal hobby-horse) and the optimal solutions.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Graham.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/2006/thinking-about-thinking#comment-663</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:25:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/2006/thinking-about-thinking#comment-663</guid>
		<description>Be careful there, Donna; people might interpret this to mean that skills is better than discipline, that good people is the key to success, and that without the right mindset any methodology is a waste of time. :)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Be careful there, Donna; people might interpret this to mean that skills is better than discipline, that good people is the key to success, and that without the right mindset any methodology is a waste of time. <img src='http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Fahey</title>
		<link>http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/2006/thinking-about-thinking#comment-662</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Fahey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/2006/thinking-about-thinking#comment-662</guid>
		<description>I went to art school, where we learned to think by constantly talking about each other's work (and talking about work out in the real world via art history). This might be a great model for interaction design education: constant critique and dialogue in order to train designer to think about how they can defend their work, find flaws in their own and other people's work. Flexing the critical thinking muscle.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I went to art school, where we learned to think by constantly talking about each other&#8217;s work (and talking about work out in the real world via art history). This might be a great model for interaction design education: constant critique and dialogue in order to train designer to think about how they can defend their work, find flaws in their own and other people&#8217;s work. Flexing the critical thinking muscle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
