interesting - i'll say the one thing i've learned on my own little side project is that architects can (and maybe should) be more well versed to develop a holistic vision for how someone experiences an object, space or environment. a lot of ux people can't do that, especially when thinking about that experience across time.
what i've found is a huge limitation on architects (doing ux) is that you really have to dig in and understand the programming language enough (not fluently but enough) to be able to know whether something you're proposing will really work or not. if you don't, then you tend to lapse back into the comfort zone of 'what can i do myself' and design to that vs. being able to truly push the boundaries of what can be done in an interesting way.
even after 10 months, i feel like an idiot when talking about things with our developer...
one other thing to add - in developing software applications, nothing ever ships fully 'done' - at best, you're releasing at 80% done. which is completely an anathema to the way of thinking as a traditional architect, where you release drawings that you hope are 100% done. it's amazing, though - people's expectations are (in software) that there's simply going to be bugs that get worked out and a new release is around the corner anyways. that temporal quality does (as the posting points out) really condition you to accept that no idea is sacred...
Greg, think of that phenomenon more like when somebody occupies the building rather than when you release documents. You ship when it's "substantially complete."
"What I bring to ux from architecture."
interesting article for those interested in other career possibilities with an architecture background.
http://johnnyholland.org/2011/09/30/what-i-bring-to-ux-from-architecture/
and another great one. Interaction Design and Architecture : A video primer
thanks!
interesting - i'll say the one thing i've learned on my own little side project is that architects can (and maybe should) be more well versed to develop a holistic vision for how someone experiences an object, space or environment. a lot of ux people can't do that, especially when thinking about that experience across time.
what i've found is a huge limitation on architects (doing ux) is that you really have to dig in and understand the programming language enough (not fluently but enough) to be able to know whether something you're proposing will really work or not. if you don't, then you tend to lapse back into the comfort zone of 'what can i do myself' and design to that vs. being able to truly push the boundaries of what can be done in an interesting way.
even after 10 months, i feel like an idiot when talking about things with our developer...
one other thing to add - in developing software applications, nothing ever ships fully 'done' - at best, you're releasing at 80% done. which is completely an anathema to the way of thinking as a traditional architect, where you release drawings that you hope are 100% done. it's amazing, though - people's expectations are (in software) that there's simply going to be bugs that get worked out and a new release is around the corner anyways. that temporal quality does (as the posting points out) really condition you to accept that no idea is sacred...
Greg, think of that phenomenon more like when somebody occupies the building rather than when you release documents. You ship when it's "substantially complete."
i hear you - just a different mindset. tough to let go of...
Si
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.