On Feb 21, 2008, at 12:16 PM, dave malouf wrote: > 1) The market is just harshin' right now.
Tell me about it. > 2) Your specific criteria of combining (I'm not arguing the merits) > code & design skills in a single person/role is even harder to find. > The bulk of this generation of designers is just not trained as such. I understand my design and skill requirements tend be harder than others, but I was actually asking more in general. All my friends at places like Apple, Google, Adobe, various startups, etc... all of them are saying the same thing about the designer supply/demand problem. > If I were you I would recruit heavily from the "interactive design" > programs at art/design/technical schools and build the specifics of > IxD talent you need through mentorship. Yup. Agreed. > Oh! and if I found it, I wouldn't tell you b/c I'm hiring!!!! This is also part of the problem. I know you meant this in jest, but at the same time, I think so many folks in the management side of the equation aren't talking to each other, so it kind of exacerbates the problem. No one is talking to each other due to trying to hire and such and it creates a larger vacuum of information to recruit within. I'm not sure if anything could be done about this, but just noting it out loud. > 4) People have keyed in on some good issues about the way we talk > about ourselves and the issues around HR/IxD relationships that as an > org and as a community of practice we have to do a better job with. > BTW, I have been trying to settle on a definition and create firm > labels for half a decade now and well, you and I just disagree. ;) I'm going to try and be clear as possible for the last time on this issue: If you (and I mean you, the IxDA board and the IxDA community in the plural sense) want to collectively settle on the definition that an IxD practitioner is: * Someone who designs interaction * Someone who is technology agnostic * Someone who is paired with a visual or graphic designer to create the aesthetic of the product * Does not code or program, even at a lightweight prototyping level Then by all means, please do so! If this is the definition, then call those people Interaction Designers. Be my guest! I know many companies and design team in Silicon Valley are already doing so. That's not what I am and that's not what I'm looking for. I define myself as someone who: * Designs interaction and workflow * Creates and design aesthetics and visual components * Codes front-end development as a light-weight prototyping exercise, in order to contribute to building what I design * Designs digital technology, specifically interfaces and software; be it desktop applications, web sites, web applications, mobile interfaces, or software enabled appliances, like an internet enabled refrigerator or a digital drawing tablet with a screen interace I have called this person an Interface Designer or Software Designer in the past, as that what I call myself. If the IxDA wants people who do the above to be called Interaction Designers, then by all means, be my guest! As long as they do it inclusively with that list of things, and exclude any aspect of it. The software industry has been literally BEGGING some group to lay ownership to this design position for more tan a decade now. I don't have a problem with labels and job titles. As near as I can tell... the IxDA does, or at least people who practice the job. I only say this because the variance in the resumes I see are literally all over the map, along with the job titles, etc. I'm more than happy to call myself an Interaction Designer if it includes aesthetics as core, assumes technology and software, and encourages building via coding since what we design at the end of the day are digital technology products. However, if the IxDA wants Interaction to be exclusive from aesthetics and building along with not being tied exclusively to code, then basically in the domain of technology products an IxD type of designer will always need to be paired with a team to cover the entire needs f product design. And then, if this is indeed the case, then we simply need to communicate to HR folks the distinction between an Interaction Designer, Graphic Designer, and Interface Designer. I'll let the Usability and Information Architects work out their own job descriptions. I personally have no problem with that. It's just I think its dangerous for designers to silo themselves like that in the technology sector, because as technology flattens even more while becoming even easier to implement, the need to have multiple people do the job of the design and the economics of building digital products will simply not be viable. -- Andrei Herasimchuk Principal, Involution Studios innovating the digital world e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] c. +1 408 306 6422 ________________________________________________________________ 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
