Rich, placing something second on a "list of firsts", if you will, doesn't mean one can do without it. It's something like asking, "What's the single most important organ in the human body", and no matter what anybody answers, you can always claim, "but how could you ever live without X, so obviously, you're wrong"? So the problem lies either with the question, "What's the single most important ....? (since you can never accomplish anything at all with that single thing), or with taking such a question literally; if you're going ask, 'What's the single most important ...?" you've got to accept that it doesn't mean it is the only one that's needed at all.
I was attempting to make a distinction between Design in general, which, as Katie Albers has pointed out, means a gazillion different things, and the more specific sort of design called "interaction" design. What makes an INTERACTION designer different from, say, a Fashion Designer, Subterranean Septic Tank Designer, or Homing Missile Designer is the emphasis on INTERACTION; the fact you engage in a conversation with the thing; it responds and changes, and thereby influences your behavior. That's it. Single Most Important is not the same as Only; to treat it as such would be turn this into a strawman argument. Nobody in their right mind would claim that Design is not important for Design; this forum is called IxDA for a reason, and we take Design to be a baseline. Cheers, Murli ________________________________________________________________ *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
