The answer to the question of how we should define interaction design, from my point of view, is not so much a matter of what it *could* be, as it is a matter of what we *want* it to be.
I think we have a big opportunity to clearly and pragmatically establish interaction design as a major discipline. Architects "own" the design of buildings. Industrial designers "own" the design of objects. I think we should "own" the design of interfaces. Architects are defined by their medium. Industrial designers are defined by their medium. And it works well. Sure there are blurry edges, architects design public spaces, gardens, etc., but still the obvious heart of what they do is to design buildings. Also, I'm afraid that our reach will exceed our grasp if we define ourselves as applicable to all mediums. If we include the interactions that people have in a retail environment as part of interaction design, then not only do we stray from the core medium of interfaces, but we also exceed our grasp -- because there is already a strong design specialty that focuses on retail spaces. Sure there is some risk in defining ourselves too tightly, so I would advocate a definition of interface that can evolve forward in time -- but I also think it needs to be obvious enough that laymen understand it. From my point of view, that rules out anything that isn't tangible. It must be touchable, hearable, viewable, etc., and be "something" through which a single person interacts. Right now, 99% of the things being made that fall under those criteria are visual, touchable, digital interfaces. So let's embrace it. Let's own the design of interfaces. I don't think this implies that interaction is the wrong name for us, and that we should be called interface designers. After all, architects are not called buildatechs, nor are industrial designers called object designers. Architect and industrial designer are simply the names that "stuck" over time, and which are now commonly accepted to mean what they mean. We can do the same for interaction design but only -- in my opinion -- if we associate it clearly with an easily understood medium -- interfaces. I think we would be missing a big opportunity if our definition becomes too academic and broad. Like "human factors" or "experience design", interaction design could become only a conceptual framework that is applicable to almost anything. I am advocating a pragmatic, career oriented, business oriented approach and purpose to IXDA -- which may not be congruent with the overall view -- but I think may resonate with many people on this list. I would hope this becomes an important discussion for the board to facilitate. I envision that a more focused and pragmatic approach (aligning ourselves to a particular medium) would more easily lead to training, certification, degrees, etc. just as architecture and industrial design have done. One needs a rich understanding of one's medium to design to it. Much of the training to be an architect is about understanding the medium as well as the process of design. I think interaction design is at a cross-roads. Does it become an adjunct discipline that is applicable to many different design processes across many different media, or does it become focused on one medium and thereby become a big "D" design discipline. My $.02 -- or maybe $.04. Joseph Selbie Founder, CEO Tristream Web Application Design ________________________________________________________________ *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
