<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Jack Bellis</title>
    <link>http://boxesandarrows.com/person/1450</link>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Jack Bellis</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Christina,&lt;br /&gt;Great info, thanks. I&amp;#8217;ve been enjoying B&amp;#38;A for years now. Just wanted to share a few thoughts.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;Instead of &amp;#8220;We welcome you to help us as we grown, ...&amp;#8221; did you really mean &amp;#8220;groan?&amp;#8221; (I know, you meant &amp;#8220;grow.&amp;#8221;)&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;A key theme to me centers around your statement: &amp;#8220;Collaborative iteration is the secret&amp;#8230;&amp;#8221; I&amp;#8217;ll continue the Edison line of thought, but with a slightly different slant. I&amp;#8217;m also a fan of an &lt;span class="caps"&gt;IXDA&lt;/span&gt;-er&amp;#8217;s signature quote&amp;#8230; &amp;#8220;Design is a process &amp;#8211; an intimate collaboration between engineers, designers, and clients.&amp;#8221; &amp;#8211; Dreyfuss, Industrial Designer. Somehow we cling to this notion that there is a holy grail process. Only if you consider 7 rounds of trial and correction a &amp;#8220;process&amp;#8221; is there a process for something as intricate as today&amp;#8217;s software design challenge. I recently heard someone say in a Philly presentation &amp;#8220;All processes are essentially broken.&amp;#8221; To me the limiting factor isn&amp;#8217;t adherence to some sort of procedural map so much as a pre-arranged willingness to make changes until we get it right.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://boxesandarrows.com/view/are_we_there_ye#content_3782</link>
      <guid>http://boxesandarrows.com/view/are_we_there_ye#content_3782</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Jack Bellis</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
