> Let me see...how do I put this politely...If we'd been adhering to > this logic in 1993, you'd be out of a job. So would I. The Web was > strictly a markup language. People developing perl apps for pages > were on the cutting edge...and that was purely for very limited > functions...it certainly had nothing to do with interface.
That's a small view of what the web is and has been.. there have been artists and thinkers using the web since day one as a place to experiment and play with interaction. Most of the original digital artists, wether they were using the web or not, had to build their own work, and that meant being the designer and the programmer. The dualism of that role is what defined the web and a lot of interactive works to this day. > The reason UX exists is precisely because all the incarnations of the > work that preceded it which were supposed to enable users rather than > accommodating machines have disappeared into system/software/hardware > fields...systems analysis to choose one at random. You're assuming that you can't divorce yourself from the technology while concepting .. It is possible to come up with the ideas and design before looking at the tech, even if it's one person doing both. The issue here has more to do with the individual designer than an inherent different between design and development. Really, programming also requires design and the thinking involved is very similar, albeit the ends are different. > Being able to prototype is, first of all, something that exists at > many levels...paper, interactive wireframes, basic html, and so > forth...prototypes are not the same thing as a .01 functioning > version of the product. I agree. All I was suggesting is that knowledge of html, css, and javascript help designers prototype and flesh out interfaces for the web. This enables the designer to see how things work within the final environment, rather than guessing. > The impossible becomes possible when you don't know it can't be done. > Deeply understanding a programming language traps most coders in its > logic. It's the difference between telling people "Find a way to do > this" and "Optimize this code" and the results vary accordingly. Again, I disagree. I'm not talking about programmers trying to design.. I'm talking about designers using basic coding to understand their medium. Not to mention that a top notch coder will never tell you something is impossible unless it's a completely insane idea. 99% of design ideas are technically possible.. however, some designs that are "possible" might not be very good when put into the context of the final product. That's where an understanding of the technology can help a designer make the best decisions. I'm not in any way suggesting that designers limit their ideas based on what they believe is and isn't possible with the technology. Design for the clouds, then revise where required. But you can't design for a medium you don't understand... Context is king. -- Matt Nish-Lapidus email/gtalk: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mattnl Home: http://www.nishlapidus.com ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
