client involvement in the design process?

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/getoutfrombehindthecurtain

personally, i think this is pretty much rubbish. of course it depends on the project, the exact requirements, and the nature of the specific relationship with the client, but for most agencies, the idea sounds disastrous.

personally, i prefer the agile UCD approach: lots of little design "sprints", where the client (and client services!) only get involved at the start and end of a sprint to review the outcomes and reprioritise the next sprint's goals.

this leaves the design experts to do what they do best, with a clear understanding of the sprint and over-arching goals... and leaves the client free to get on with running their business.

anyone else got an opinion?

Civil liberties and the web

Re:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/07/breast-isnt-best-on-facebook/

So we were discussing this at work today...
Personally, I think it's strange that people complain about stuff like this? Facebook is a commercial operation that provides an application (for free!) with clearly set out terms and conditions. this isn't about what's socially acceptable... it's about whatever their terms of use are. Users of Facebook agree to this when they sign up. If they don't like it, then there is always the law of 2 feet: leave.

But Rich was arguing the point that this is essentially an infringement on civil liberties, because breast feeding isn't obscene, and Facebook has no right to censor it.

For me, there is definitely a judgement call about what makes nudity obscene. Personally I don't mind if women get their baps out in most situations, but I can also understand that some people may not be as liberal. The point is that context matters a lot. So if Facebook want to avoid this to protect their user-base, then surely they should be allowed.

I'm all for people protesting this, if they want. I guess my point is just why bother? You could spend your whole life worrying about little stuff like this. Or, like society does anyway, people could just relax and flock together or repel based on whatever common grounds they find.

Sure there's a danger of eroding our civil liberties, but there's also a danger in following the lowest-common-denominator of being overly politically correct.

Will people please stop bitching about Apple's pricing strategy?!

Read this:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.php

And am continually astounded at people's naivety. Apple have maintained a rationalised suite of products since Mr Jobs came back and sorted things out. So, as they add a new top-end product to their range (in whatever category: PCs, Notebooks, OSs, iPods, etc.), they drop one off the low-end. This allows them to just keep 3 or 4 products in each range, making it a lot easier for people to choose and a lot easier for them to keep inventory for and support. In the same fashion, they shift the pricing so that the top-end product is a bit beyond what a sensible person can afford and the low-end is pretty darn accessible.

This shouldn't be news to anyone!

Of course, when they release a new product category, they can (and do) charge what they like, because like moths to the flame, Apple loyalists will buy it. So, if you want to pay a super premium to be the first one to have something, then go for it. Just don't go complaining about it.

The other thing that confuses me is why on earth would you pay a premium to become a beta-tester for Apple. Show me the generation-1 product from them that has been free from major issues. Battery-life, overheating, screen robustness, OS-flaws, etc...

But Apple aren't the only ones. Microsoft has been effectively treating their first release software as beta for years now. Why? Well because the market pressure dictates as such. If any of these technology-centric companies waited till something was properly tested and stable, they'd lose any momentum available through the initial wave. It's sad, but true.

We face similar issues in the world of digital advertising. How can we be expected to continually innovate , whilst working backwards from a fixed point in time that demands integration with other media activity? The answer is of course, that we wait for users of our media creations to identify the issues and fix them in the live environment. Something has to give: Users? Clients? Developers? Project Quality? Time? Cost? Normally it's some combination of these. And normally the agency involved has to shift into some mode of damage control.

Surely there's a better way?