On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:11:16, dave malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also disagree with your assumption about computer | computer > interactions. To me a conversation is a conversation and the IxD is > best at creating conversations between any intelligent entities. > silicon or carbon. >
What kind of Computer-Computer interactions are you talking about? For me Computer-Computer interaction is interaction of software objects, interaction of application software with the OS across the APIs, interaction of OS with the hardware drivers wrapping the hardware and interaction of drivers to the processor and memory and interaction of processor down to bits and bytes. Are you saying an IxDer will be better off doing all these interactions because each interaction can be a conversation. I agree each interaction is a conversation but then to have a conversation one needs to understand the language also. Will an IxDer be able to talk the language of the OS and applications on top of it? Not unless you include the OS API designers to be also IxDers and if that is true then who isnt an IxDer because everybody ultimately is designing an interaction at some level?? Thanks Pankaj ________________________________________________________________ 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
