For sure this is a bit tedious. But if we are to unify our message of value, like any good academian, we should define our terms. Many of the conversations here go on for weeks before the two side figure out they agree on everything but the definition of a critical term. Dan - you penned an incredibly important approach to design - called it out and named it. A year after you book - I can not use the term unless I am talking to someone on this forum. Instead I tend to use ego- centric design because the uninitiated know immediately what I am talking about. These definitions will be the building blocks to our message. Our audience will not have the same opportunity for dialog or background. The message will need to be clear simple and normalized.
But if there is traction and the genius debate is over - so be it. Mark On Jan 21, 2008, at 2:44 AM, Dan Saffer wrote: > But I'm a little tired of the semantics debate. We should prototype > the messaging around our discipline on a wiki and be done with it, > rather than have these debates crop up year after year. > > Dan ________________________________________________________________ *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
