So - if I am designing the control mechanisms for an elevator that is electric and mechanical - I am not an interaction designer? I does seem odd to shift the definition from what we do, to what technology or medium we do it with.
Mark On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:39 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote: > On Jan 19, 2008, at 12:17 AM, dave malouf wrote: > >> The fact that I feel equally strongly that mentioning the word >> digital in an organizational definition is unnecessarily limiting. By >> its very nature IxD is form agnostic. > > I'm not so sure. How can IxDA be form agnostic if one product has a > digital component (an iPhone) and another one might not (a standard > wall phone)? The inherent "interaction" of the two is significantly > different, due to the distinction of the digital component and what > that component provides the designer of the product to do. (For this > example, pretend the phone is more like the one you used back in the > 1970s or even 1980s.) If the interaction were similar but not > distinct enough, I guess I would concede the point, but the two > things are radically different in how people use them and how they > are designed. > >> I should be able to move between >> designing the entire interface of a mobile computer system >> (http://tinyurl.com/2ltawl - Motorola Wearable Enterprise Computer) >> -- the software and the outside interfaces and then also move on to >> designing iTunes. > > Both of those examples are digital, aren't they? I think the question > is can you go from designing the interface of iTunes to redoing the > flow of how FedEx operates door to door package delivery and > services. Or how you can move from working on a mobile computing > system to changing the way medical services are offered to the public > via insurance companies or such. > >> Now if in your world all aspects of this design eco-system fit under >> digital, then great. But when you say digital, and then start talking >> about #'s of people doing web/software it sounds like you mean >> digital = software and wouldn't even include things like tangible >> interfaces, VUIs, location-based interactions, ambient interactions, >> etc. > > I do mean digital equals software. Or even more fundamental: code. > Anything that requires code, logic, interaction, presentation, etc. > Digital requires a microchip in my view, and needs code to be useful, > or its just expensive sand. > >> But that is just because as you keep raising the lens to higher >> altitudes the differences fall away. I would much rather have SIGs >> within IxDA on web, on even enterprise web and hardware design and >> services (I like the POS system example, Dan) then to limit the >> nature of interaction design is at a foundational level. > > Understood. But if you get too broad, how is that helpful in the > trenches? What do you gain by being broad, especially at this stage > of the game? > >> Now, I do not make the decision for the organization except through >> my own voice. I think it would be sad to create an IxDA that >> wouldn't really include everything, b/c I think there is so much >> that web designers can and should learn from the hardware IxDs who >> quite frankly have been doing IxD a lot longer (having coined the >> term in the 80's). > > What is "everything?" You keep saying that, but I honestly doubt it > really is "everything." I'm pretty sure it's a list of things. In > that list of things, the question becomes what is useful and what is > not as useful for a design practice. And if the useful is more > digital, why shy away from it? If its not, so be it! At least we'd > know. > >> A great example of IxD work that I use in my history of IxD slides >> where digital isn't there, is the behavioral and system design of >> the communication system between the bridge on a large ship and the >> engine room. There is a merging of voice, graphics, and tangible >> interfaces throughout, yet not a single microchip or transistor until >> about 50 years ago. > >> The rules of IxD that you used in building Photoshop & the suite of >> graphics and communications tools under the Adobe banner are the same >> ones used by those who designed that system at an Human >> Factors/Ergonomics level, but also at the level of behaviors to meet >> goals and motivations. > > You'd have to list out what you think those rules are. I know exactly > how I went about the design of the Adobe common interface to form the > basis of the Creative Suite way back then, and how I made decisions, > and what criteria I used, and how I could only do certain things > given company politics, technology, constraints, shipping schedules, > etc. I'm the one who defined it after all. But unless you list out > what rules you think I used and the rules used in your system deign > example, I can't comment on the relevance of your point yet. It might > instructive to follow through on that to see where it leads us. > >> If your vision of digital can include the design of a Razor as well >> as the design of Songza it is so broad that it well, is unnecessary, >> so why focus on it at all? > > The Razor or Razr? (I assume you mean the phone, right?) If you mean > the form factor and industrial design of the Razr, then I'm not > qualified to do that. I'd have to go back to school or least out to > the shed and get my hands dirty building tangible things again like I > used to when I did set and production design in my younger days. But > if you mean anything that has to do with how the software or digital > aspects of the Razr work, then absolutely. This includes finding ways > to work with the hardware components that would drive interacting > with the underlying software or code. > > And that's largely the distinction I make. As long as it touches the > code portion of the product, thats where I think it becomes digital > design, interaction design, interface design, or whatever we all > finally wind up calling it. > >> It just creates limits that may not >> (probably won't) be there as we move forward, or even if it is other >> new divisions will occur that are even more important. > > What you call limits, I see as definition. I find that with > definition comes clarity. With clarity comes a myriad of > possibilities of things I can do or strive towards achieving. It's > not a limitation to me, it *guidance.* The very thing I lacked > getting into this field and for which I had to find my own way since > no one else was defining it very well. (And yes, that makes me grumpy > sometimes. Okay... it makes me grumpy all of the time.) > >> But "behavior" & "interaction" will always be there. I.e. what >> happens when digital gets replaced with biological? > > You tell me. I imagine I'll be too old to know or care when that day > arrives. I'll leave the evolutionary path of the profession to those > it will impact the most, which is certainly not me. And I'm not sure > what to do at all with biological as that scares the pants off me > personally. It's outside of my conceptual reality. > >> Technology distinctions like "digital" are inconsequential to IxD, >> so is >> focusing on them. > > Respectfully, I disagree. Design -- when it comes to earning a > paycheck -- is not an academic exercise. It has specific processes, > specific deliverables, specific practices, and specific ideas by > those who practice it. It's useful to know the distinction between > industrial design and graphic design, if for anything to figure out > which direction you might want to take your career. > > I think distinctions are extraordinarily useful in helping one to > create definitions of how to do one's work day to day, or how to > strive for career goals knowing what specifically the profession is > at a more refined level. I don't find them restrictive, or > constraining, or whatever. I personally find them freeing as they > provide the foundation on which to build a body of work. > > ________________________________________________________________ *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
