Charlie and Robert, I couldn't agree more. I get equally as frustrated every time the list talks about what design is, or what interaction design is. I simply want us to agree on something and move on to bigger and better things.
I've expressed this in the past, the response I got was that, hey, this is a discussion list, it happens. The conversation is valuable, even if it does happen frequently at an excruciatingly level of detail. It's not the destination, it's the journey type of stuff. I can see that point of view and I can the point of view that the 3 of us seem to share. I'm not sure what to do about it, or if we should do something about it. I know that the term "user centered design" isn't really technically accurate, as others have pointed out - it's not *just* about users, it's about other context - goals, technology, etc. But does it do us any good or the larger community we're trying to serve any good to debate endlessly about a definition? Does it do any good when consulting agencies spin off different terms for the same darn thing for competitive advantage or profit centric agendas? It is realistic to think we can address this and solve it once and for all? I really don't know. But I'd love to be a part of some effort to find out. Jeff On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:14:25, Charlie Kreitzberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I also find it frustrating. One of the problems with our field > is that it's hard to define. Key terms we use -- like design -- mean > a lot of things to people. I'm really bored with hearing how the term > "user" is terrible and only also used by drug dealers. > > Etc. etc. > > Frankly, I think it hurts us. > > All the way back in 2003, when I was editor in chief of User > Experience magazine, I wrote an editorial that said in part: > > "Can we collectively (and by this I mean all the players in our > human-centered universe) come up with a clear, shared, compelling > and, above all, actionable vision to present to the technology > community? To do this, we'd have to make a few concessions. We'd > have to put aside our love of arguing fine distinctions and reach for > the fundamental agreements that we all share. We'd have to agree upon > a common terminology even if some nuances are lost." > > My call to action was to suggest that get together and make it > happen. But it seems that we are not quite there yet. > > Charlie > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24564 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > *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 > ________________________________________________________________ *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
