Revisiting Adaptive Design, a lost design movement

There’s a wide gulf between the people who use TV remotes, car dashboards, and other everyday items and the people who make the design decisions that bring those items into being, who are driven or constrained by motives other than ease of use. The bodiedness of people gets lost, especially in the sedentary workplace dotted with scores of chairs, w

The design process “has to start and end with end users,” he says. “These are the people who have to define the requirements of the technology, and give it the thumbs-up at the end.” Getting the seat, frame, and handles in the right positions to be both comfortable and advantageous in their physics was an engineer’s task of very fine designing and

design should address a mix of what historian John Heskett summarizes as “utility and significance.”

Let’s start by assessing the existing workflow between designers and engineers and look for opportunities to work more closely together.

The Design of Everyday Things, where he talks about the gulf between the system image (the interface) and the user’s model (the perception of the interface formed by the user through interaction with it).

In the real world, the systems we build are part of complex adaptive systems that encompass developers, users, and customers, as well as their environments and organizational contexts. This reality calls for a more dynamic, almost organic approach to architecture and design, one that allows you to learn as you go and adapt your software to ever-cha