On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:16:07, Bill Abel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know, no one seems to have mentioned that user interface design
> typically refers to a graphic designer working on the visual design
> of some sort of software-driven product.
>
Bill, we should avoid generalizations...I've worked in a company where
I was responsible for a group of people that we could call interface
designers, (and another group of information architects) but none of
them were concerned about visual design...in fact, there were another
group (they called themselves "brand designers") that were 100%
concerned about visual aspects of the user interface. Basically, we
(information architects and interface designers) designed the user
experience, working closely with the marketing guys, who defined
strategy and other not-so-funny stuff. But to say that user interface
designers typically work with "visual design" is not precisely what
interface design is, IMHO.
> And interaction design is concerned with the underlying design (the
> system) of how a product works - even why it exists in the first
> place. Interaction design requires the understanding of the user's
> behavior, the user's mental model, etc... Interaction design is more
> like product designer/industrial designer/architect in my mind, while
> user interface is more like art direct/graphic designer/visual
> designer.
>
> [...]
>
> But, the interaction design in my opinion is about how it works and
> why, while interface is much more about aesthetics.
>
> It's the interface designer who will make it pretty.
>
I think the best word would not be "aesthetics", but "surface".
Interaction design works more closely to the structure, the
foundations of the experience/software or whatever. Interface
designers work more closely to the surface, to the presentation level.
Not necessarily with the "aesthetics". Those who deal with aesthetics
are really visual designers (sometimes could be the same guy).
6 or 7 years ago George Olsen wrote a nice article ("Names are for
tombstones, baby") about this fuzzy discussion - what is this, what is
that... Although many of us have a different concept about what is
interface design, interaction design, Olsen did a good job on defining
some boundaries.
It was published on Boxes and Arrows, among an article wrote by Adam Greenfield.
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/whats_in_a_name_or_what_exactly_do_we_call_ourselves_
What strikes me is that, as we can see by this discussion that took
place on this thread, the article is still valid, even after years!
I would like to stress an important concept here...many of us define
"interface design" or "interaction design" using computer screens as
the output of our work, as interaction would be something limited to
computer screens.
We're entering the helm of ubiquitous and pervasive computing,
nanotechnology. We should broaden our minds and think far beyond
computer screens. ANYTHING could be a "computer", an interaction
device. This gives us another perspective of what experiences we
should be designing.
Interaction design is NOT limited do computer screens, wireframes,
menus...we should set our vision of our profession onto another level.
cheers,
--
prof. mauro pinheiro
universidade federal do espírito santo
centro de artes
depto. de desenho industrial
________________________________________________________________
*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
