Gartner has a research report available for $95, titled Agile Requirements Definition and Management Will Benefit Application Development (report #G00126310 Apr 2005). The report is 7 pages long and makes an interesting read. Gartner makes a set of predictions for 2009 about requirements definition and management (RDM) systems, and the software created with RDM tools. Gartner misattributes several benefits of good process to RDM tools. We give them a 3.5/7 for their analysis – check out the details here.
Category Archives: Interaction design
Posted in Agile, Interaction design, Process Improvement, Product Management, Requirements, Requirements management software, Software development, UX, Use Cases
Tagged Agile, agile rdm, alan cooper, gartner, goal-driven development, incremental delivery, incremental development, incremental process, karl wiegers, managing data, rdm, rdm process, rdm research, requirements research
1 Comment
Persona Grata
Different people approach the same goal very differently. When we don’t truly identify our users, we end up with software that dehumanizes, waters-down, and otherwise fails to succeed at anything more than grudgingly tolerated functionality. Even worse, we may ignore the needs of our key demographic, resulting in software failure. When we use personas instead of generic use cases, we can avoid both the misery of a failed product and mediocrity of marginal success.
Office 2007 UX Victory
Microsoft Office 2007 has a completely new user interaction paradigm.
The old interfaces for Microsoft Office 2003 (and earlier) organized the menu structures around features or capabilities. Each grouping represented tasks that appeared to be related in functionality. This, unfortunately, doesn’t help the user very much. The new interface is very task based, and organizes capabilities based upon the task the user is currently performing. What the Office team has done is innovate. And the innovations differentiate them from every other business application I’ve ever seen.
Posted in Interaction design, UX, Usability
Tagged differentiated innovation, innovation, managing data, office 2007, user experience, user interaction
2 Comments
Competent Users and Software Requirements
We were all student drivers at one point. But no one stays a beginner indefinitely. Almost no one becomes an expert driver either. Most of us are competent drivers. Driving skill probably even follows a bell curve distribution, with most drivers being OK, some “bad”, some “good”, and very few experts or beginners. We’ll show in this post how to apply this pattern to software requirements and design.
The same is true of our users
Posted in Interaction design, Requirements, Requirements Models, Software development, Software requirements specification, UX, Use Cases
Tagged alan cooper, constraints, FRS, Interaction design, kano, karl wiegers, managing data, MRD, non-functional requirements, persona, personas, PRD, prioritizing software requirements, requirements prioritization, scenario, software requirements, SRS, structured requirements, Use Cases
4 Comments
How To Create Personas for Goal Driven Development
We mentioned the creation of personas in our overview of the interaction design process. In this post we will talk in more detail about how to create them. We will cover identification and prioritization of the personas, defining the corporate and personal goals for the personas, and creating the anecdotal stories that give each persona an identity against which we can make design decisions. Scenarios are also defined for the primary personas, which drive the creation of the functional requirements specification.
Posted in Interaction design, Prioritization, Software development, Software requirements specification, UX
Tagged functional requirements specification, goal-driven development, how to create personas, Interaction design, managing data, prioritization of requirements, prioritizing requirements
1 Comment
Interaction Design Process Overview
Interaction design, as described by Alan Cooper in The Inmates are Running the Asylum, is a process for designing software by focusing on the most important users. Unlike traditional requirements gathering and solution design processes, interaction design focuses on the goals of a specific class of users, represented as a persona. Those goals are considered when defining scenarios that represent how the primary persona will use the software. The combination of goals and scenarios leads to design artifacts and a functional specification. We will explore these steps in more detail in this post.
Interaction design explained by Alan Cooper
There’s a Clash of the Titans joint-interview posted at FTPOnline between Kent Beck and Alan Cooper called Extreme Programming vs. Interaction Design. It’s 10 pages of back and forth. In short, these icons agree on objectives, and disagree on how to achieve them. They also spend some time (mis)characterizing each other’s positions and defining their own. In this post we will look at how Alan Cooper explains Interaction Design. We would say that he defines interaction design more as a requirements than a design activity.
Posted in Agile, Interaction design, Requirements, Requirements gathering, Software requirements specification, UX
Tagged Interaction design, managing data, market requirements, MRD, PRD, product requirements, Requirements, requirements elicitation, requirements vs design, software requirements
2 Comments
Latest Articles
Comments on all Articles
