When I was studying the HCI course at UCL, we had a module known as “Design Tools and Techniques” (it’s now been changed/modified to “Design Practice”), which provided an overview of design that looked like this:
- The Design Problem
- Requirements, Scenarios & Task Analysis
- Prototyping
- Sketching
- Design Judgements
- Visual Design
- Visual Communication
- Interfaces
- Personas
If you’re from a design background, you’re probably looking at this and going… WTF? Task Analysis? Interfaces? Personas? What does that have anything to do with design?
The graphic design course outline from Central St. Martins makes a bit more sense. I wish we had learnt more about sketching as a thinking tool (not as a drawing tool), about exploration in creative problem solving, about the various modes of working (individual vs. collaborative), about the different ways other designers produced their work as well as the various graphic design areas (photography, typography/letterpress, print, animation, etc.).
However, I actually think that the module hasn’t done much damage. I still see a lot of UX designers use patterns, tools, and processes as a starting point – when we should only be considering those when we’ve fully understood the fundamentals. I sometimes wish we could have sessions where we deconstruct the patterns, tools and processes we’re so used to – just to get at the essence of creative problem solving.
While I don’t discount the value I’ve gained from learning about cognition, affect, organizational psychology, ergonomics… it’s good design that really makes all those skills truly worth something.
And while I’m giving my alma mater a hard time here, I’ve also heard criticisms about CSM being too open and exploratory. Maybe we should get UCLIC and Central St. Martins to trade students for half a year.
That would really mess things up nicely.
Absolutely agree that we’d have benefited from having a bit more of the traditional creative&visual design stuff in the course. I had to do my homework of catching up on creative design practice and processes largely on my own.
However, the HCI at UCLIC is not (and is not trying to be) a purely design degree. The course website and outline makes it clear. There are obviously other design degrees in London, like the one you mentioned, or the interaction design at RCA.
Lastly, I strongly believe that Task Analysis, Interfaces (this was mainly about design patterns), and Personas have their place in a design module within the framework of a HCI degree. Similarly, cognitive science, affective interaction, and ergonomics constitute the very fundamentals of what UX Design practice entails. You can’t effectively design for people without the knowledge of these. So I’d almost turn it on its head and say that it’s building on the these that makes our designs truly worth something.