“…if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong”
Consumed => “Why UX Designers Need to Think like Architects” by Rima Reda on UX Magazine.
=> My value add (i.e., left a comment)…
I hope you don’t mind long comments.
re: Buckminster Fuller said: “…I only think about how to solve the problem…”
But it all starts here does it? That is, misunderstand the problem—any problem, not just UX problems—and the solution, regardless of how brilliant, is going to be off-target. While Hal Box’s Three Worlds helps, I think it might be much simpler than that (presuming the problem is already understood).
Well formed solutions come down to this: In theory vs Reality.
For example, project / client wants (no matter how misplaced), as well as budget would be part of the reality side of the process. In theory, is anything outside the context of reality. That is, custom cut wood (as opposed to stock size from the lumber yard) would be theory. Exploring solutions in many cases starts in theory but it must work towards reality. How much time and effort can be devoted to that migration, is a function of timeline / budget. Yet how many times do we still see a budget missed because an excessive amount of time was put into theory (and the team’s self-indulgence, creative masturbation, etc.)?
Great article. Thanks. The closing quote from Hal box was worth the price of admission.
p.s. I believe there might be one important factor that is missing from your analogy / discussion. That is, maintenance and maintainability. For example, how many times have we seen a building material that looks great when new but then soaks up dirt and such as it weathers. Or what about trees that are planted directly under power lines? Yes, it looks great on postcard but in a few years that fully grown tree is just one thunderstorm away from an inconvenience, as well as an unnecessary expense. We must be mindful of the life-cycle (if you will) of the products we design.