> Andrei said: > > 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. There are a number of industrial designers in IxDA, as well as Interaction Designers who work in Industrial and Product Design studios, who work on interaction aspects of products which don't necessarily have digital or code-related natures. "Interaction Design" as I've practiced it since the early 1980s (and others have as well) includes everything associated with usage and operational patterns. This can, and often does mean "digital" or interaction with the "code" portions of electronic products, but for me it also includes things like how blood sample contains are loaded into an analyzer. This is human interaction, and in my generalist, whole-product design approach, this is about interaction. I also just want to say right now at the start that I'll strongly oppose the inclusion of Dan Saffer's term, "Genius Design," for a range of reasons. 1) It's not a term that I can imagine ANYBODY would consider applying to themselves, let alone accurately describing or expressing what's actually at the heart of what the term proposes to label. 2) What's at the heart of what the inadequate (and I maintain, somewhat sneering) term, "genius design" proposes to label is actually a mix of: 2a) Individual or small-scale expert team design 2b) Short development schedule and/or budget timeframes 2c) Expert decisions and judgements best carried out by experienced practitioners So let's axe the term "genius design," right here and now. If someone or a consensus wishes to label some ultra-successful generalist or small team, or "special forces" design efforts as "genius," or specific designers who've demonstrated significant success track records, then fine. But this is highly inadequate when it comes to the category of approach represented by the types of individuals and small groups that I describe above. Why are these semantics important to us as a field? For these reasons: 1) Individual or small-scale expert team design is a valid approach to design 2) Valid and successful careers can be built upon Individual or small-scale expert team design approaches 3) Many products and systems have needs (and time and budget constraints) that can be benefitted and addressed by Individual or small-scale expert team design approaches 4) Young interaction designers need to understand that they do not need to be geniuses, nor think of themselves as such, in order to progressively and gradually become proficient at Individual or small-scale expert team design, usually through apprenticeships and mentoring by those more experienced. Jim James Leftwich, IDSA CXO - Chief Experience Officer SeeqPod, Inc. Emeryville, California http://www.seeqpod.com Orbit Interaction Palo Alto, California http://www.orbitnet.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=24685 ________________________________________________________________ *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
