Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Hackability vs. control A very smart, detailed, and thoroughly linked piece on designing for adaptability and hackability: Dan Hill on Adaptive and Hackable Products.  Hey kids, interested in architecture, adaptive design, hacking, and interaction design? Of course you are. Go read my interview with the BBC[base ']s Dan Hill.   [Adaptive Path] Hill's suggestions are right in line with Edward Tenner's talk at DUX 2005, which addressed the possibility of designing for unintended consequences: that is, to allow users to discover and devise new uses for products (ideally, positive unintended consequences; Tenners book Why Things Bite Back describes the unintended consequences of poor design). Which was in stark contrast with one attendee's assertion that products effectively die after they're released into the world and we lose control over them. I don't recall anyone agreeing with that statement. I, for one, consider control to be illusory at best, if not entirely nonexistent. Better to let our creations go and to appreciate the remarkable resourcefulness and creativity of users. 9:37:58 PM    Questions? Comments? Flames? []

© Copyright 2002-2006 Fred Sampson. Last update: 6/5/06; 6:20:18 AM.