On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:21:42, David Malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > someone said this: "You should be able to think logically, > sequentially" > > Yikes!!! that is engineering, not design. In fact it is the ability > to think and connect non-sequentially that is design. (Ok, I got into > a bit of definition war there, and it is up to you not to fall for the > bait.)
Erm. If I'm designing an interaction where someone does one thing and something else responds to that action, then I need to be able to think logically and sequentially about that. What, based on my understanding of user needs, etc., will the user expect to happen as a result of this action? What makes sense to happen next in the context of this activity? If I couldn't do this, I couldn't be an interaction designer. Maybe that means that you need to be somewhat of an engineer to design interactions, I don't know. But I will grant you that yes, you also need to be able to think beyond the logical, beyond the sequential toward the big-picture experience. But when it gets down to the wireframes and the prototypes, you need to know how one thing flows to another. - Fred ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
