<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Decision-Based Design</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.greenonions.com/2010/01/20/decision-based-design/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.greenonions.com/2010/01/20/decision-based-design/</link>
	<description>This is not a cooking blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:43:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Pamental</title>
		<link>http://blog.greenonions.com/2010/01/20/decision-based-design/#comment-63</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Pamental</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.greenonions.com/?p=142#comment-63</guid>
		<description>Dan,

Nice thought process. Makes me think about what I&#039;ve read (and tried to practice) in &#039;task-focused&#039; design: i.e. work through with the users need (both external and internal users) to accomplish and design to support those task flows rather than impose a single workflow across the system. Once you sort out the tasks it&#039;s easier to plot them side-by-side and see where they overlap and differ. It&#039;s often not too difficult to make a screen slightly more flexibly and suddenly support multiple task flows and user types.

Great stuff!

Jason</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan,</p>
<p>Nice thought process. Makes me think about what I&#8217;ve read (and tried to practice) in &#8216;task-focused&#8217; design: i.e. work through with the users need (both external and internal users) to accomplish and design to support those task flows rather than impose a single workflow across the system. Once you sort out the tasks it&#8217;s easier to plot them side-by-side and see where they overlap and differ. It&#8217;s often not too difficult to make a screen slightly more flexibly and suddenly support multiple task flows and user types.</p>
<p>Great stuff!</p>
<p>Jason</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Warzecha</title>
		<link>http://blog.greenonions.com/2010/01/20/decision-based-design/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Warzecha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:13:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.greenonions.com/?p=142#comment-54</guid>
		<description>Dan, thanks for reposting this. Great ideas are timeless, it&#039;s a pity we have to stare at them for so long before many of us do anything great with them.

I like what this means for the convergence of content strategy and information architecture. A process like you describe should force the question: &quot;What does the user need to make a decision in this state/page?&quot; Part of that is what message or content they need to be presented (often a concern of Content Strategists), another part is what functionality needs be presented (traditionally a concern of IAs). 

When we view it that way, it&#039;s clear we need a unified approach, with its own vocabulary, structure, and process. From my view this floats at some higher level than Content Strategy and Information Architecture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan, thanks for reposting this. Great ideas are timeless, it&#8217;s a pity we have to stare at them for so long before many of us do anything great with them.</p>
<p>I like what this means for the convergence of content strategy and information architecture. A process like you describe should force the question: &#8220;What does the user need to make a decision in this state/page?&#8221; Part of that is what message or content they need to be presented (often a concern of Content Strategists), another part is what functionality needs be presented (traditionally a concern of IAs). </p>
<p>When we view it that way, it&#8217;s clear we need a unified approach, with its own vocabulary, structure, and process. From my view this floats at some higher level than Content Strategy and Information Architecture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Airey on letterpress; Decision-Based Design &#171; Design and Innovation Daily</title>
		<link>http://blog.greenonions.com/2010/01/20/decision-based-design/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>David Airey on letterpress; Decision-Based Design &#171; Design and Innovation Daily</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.greenonions.com/?p=142#comment-53</guid>
		<description>[...] On a completely unrelated topic, Dan Brown republished a 2005 article in which he describes an unusual approach to software design. Instead of using functional specifications, information architecture, or user personas as the main drivers of the design process, Brown focused on the large and complex set of decisions that users must make while using the software; he treated the software as a system built primarily to support the users&#8217; decision-making: &#8220;Decision-Based Design.&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] On a completely unrelated topic, Dan Brown republished a 2005 article in which he describes an unusual approach to software design. Instead of using functional specifications, information architecture, or user personas as the main drivers of the design process, Brown focused on the large and complex set of decisions that users must make while using the software; he treated the software as a system built primarily to support the users&#8217; decision-making: &#8220;Decision-Based Design.&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://blog.greenonions.com/2010/01/20/decision-based-design/#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.greenonions.com/?p=142#comment-52</guid>
		<description>This approach is really interesting. Have you (or have others) written more about this? Did you get a sense of how effective the process would be, compared to more traditional techniques?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This approach is really interesting. Have you (or have others) written more about this? Did you get a sense of how effective the process would be, compared to more traditional techniques?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: charlene</title>
		<link>http://blog.greenonions.com/2010/01/20/decision-based-design/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>charlene</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:32:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.greenonions.com/?p=142#comment-51</guid>
		<description>Thanks for re-posting this. It&#039;s just the kind of detailed day-to-day process stuff I love hearing about. I&#039;m curious how do you think the activity of creating decision lists differs (if it does differ) from task analysis?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for re-posting this. It&#8217;s just the kind of detailed day-to-day process stuff I love hearing about. I&#8217;m curious how do you think the activity of creating decision lists differs (if it does differ) from task analysis?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
