On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:49 PM, David Malouf wrote: > What a great thread! This is one of the best "definitional" threads > of the > last year.
Not possible. I started the thread, remember? > Andrei, I think your articulation of the situation is both > brilliant and > off. It is brilliant in that it is open for answers, and tries to > give clear > choices. It is off in that it assumes that these are the only two > choices, > and that they are somehow in contradiction with each other. I'm of the opinion that if you have a hard enough time getting even two job definitions right, then don't try more. Sure... there are other choices... but can we please keep the problem simpler until things get under control first? > I believe that as interaction designers who are interested in the > design of > behaviors we can apply our skills to many different arenas where the > behaviors and interactions between humans and products and humans and > systems and well products/systems with other products/systems and > humans > with other humans take place. That's definitely what I meant by "technology agnostic." More on this below. > That being said, our bread and butter, our roots, our strength, our > nexus > ... blah blah blah, is in the realm of the digital. However, I do not > believe that "digital" is equal to "software". If there is silicon > in the > system creating further complexity through algorithms then we have an > important role. I'm not sure how "silicon in the system creating further complexity through algorithms" as a distinction is really any different from "software." All software is at its core is basically algorithms and logic. In fact, learning how to create algorithms is one of the main classes you have to pass on the road to engineering and writing software. So I'm pretty sure we are saying the same thing when we both use "digital" as a term. I like to use "software" because it's more readily understood outside the confines of engineers and people who do interface design. And it's a lot easier to say than "when there's silicon in the system creating further complexity through algorithms." > So I'm not sure this is "agnostic" or not. "Digital" is definitely technology specific and not agnostic in the sense that it separates what an interaction designer might do with an iPhone versus a traditional analog phone. Once you assume digital, I think you are very much tying yourself to technology. Specifically, software since it is software that allows interaction to exist in a meaningful way in digital products, as opposed to designing the interaction of something not digital. > I like to think > of all designers as "technology agnostic" in so far as we design > without > thought of technology to start, and then design towards technology, > not as a > skill, but as a constraint in the design environment (this is > probably true > of all designers). That use of the word "technology" is speaking about specific types of digital technology, often times software platform choices. And the kind of agnosticism you speak of certainly exists in all forms of design. Graphic designers deal with it in developing branding solutions, where the brand solution has to cross printed business systems, packaging, commercials and web promotions. It's also the topic of my "Think from center" presentation. But that kind of "technology agnostic" concept is different than what I meant by using the phrase. Again... more on that below. > Does this mean that everyone is an interaction designer. Hell NO!!! > Just b/c > you practice interaction design doesn't mean that you ARE an > interaction > designer. Well, you can if you want. but you could also be a user > experience > designer, interface designer, interactive designer, industrial > designer, > architect, business analyst, etc. Or you can be an interaction > designer. Exactly. But this is the problem. People are now basically swapping what *used* to be called "interface" design or even "user experience" design with "interaction" design and calling it a day. That has to stop. All it's doing is creating a lot more confusion in the job market where there was already confusion from the folks who dropped in and used any number of job titles they felt like that month in the late 1990s. (And then in the future once it's all sorted out, I can write a thread called "Where are all the Interface Designers" and people will know I mean "interface designers" and not "interaction designers." And heck, some of the interaction designers in the list when I write that can see what skills they would need to develop or learn to become an interface designer if they perceive an overload of interaction designers in the field and a lack of interface designers. Win win!) > BUT ... and this is the clincher. Doing this is all well and good, > but if > you can't galvanize a clear message (Thanx Liz) around it, you > might have to > re-think the strategy and the associated tactics. I'm certainly glad to hear to hear you say that... > Andrei, I think of you as a surgeon, who is looking for the surgeons > organization among the doctors' organization. You practice surgery, > which > means you practice medicine, but you only practice a small part of > medicine > and you want your part to define all of medicine. But then you do this again! Stop it! Please? You keep defining me as a niche or a specialist, when that is only true if you believe that "digital" is a niche and that it lives as only an aspect of some larger ecosystem. From everything you say, I think its clear you think digital is a niche of some larger picture. However, if you believe that "digital" and "software" are fundamental for a particular type of designer, as I do, then what I do is not a niche at all since "digital" and "software" are quite broad and large domains, much in the same way graphic design and industrial design are large domains. I can do any and all aspects of digital and software design no matter what market a software product is aimed at. I've designed everything from photography software, illustration programs, desktop publishing products, business enterprise systems, B2B enterprise software, tech support software, invitation applications, a social gaming network, television 3D graphics, animation software, my own blog, and on and on... That breadth of product design experience is not "a small part" of the digital domain. Not at all! At the same time, some that define themselves as "interaction designers" can only do a portion of the design tasks needed for the same job that I've done as an interface designer. In that sense, I'm the general practitioner while people who define themselves as interaction designers are the specialists. And to be clear... This is true if you tie yourself to digital and software like I do, which is why I bring up the concept of "technology agnostic" in my definitions in this thread. To me, this is basically the differentiator. I think a lot of people are at a crossroads of what kind of designer they want to be. There will be plenty who want to stick with being interaction designers, the specialists in behavior who happen to enjoy digital, but may some day move into other domains. But there are also plenty who want to move more towards what I'm talking about: specifically focusing on digital and software design. For those that want to do that, they need to be prepared to learn a lot of different skills than what is expected of interaction designers as they are defined today. Skills that have to do with coding and prototyping, aesthetics and behavior as it relates to humans interacting with software. What needs to happen, in my opinion, is that those of you that want IxD to be technology agnostic and *not* tied to digital simply need to make that a well known accepted definition, and then find a way to make sure it is understood that an interaction designer is very much a specialist within the realm of digital. But the kind of specialist that can cross various problem domains past digital to have a broader impact. Companies can hire interaction designers then to work on *specific* aspects of their software products that only require a certain set of skills, teamed up with others of course, while also asking those interaction designers to take a crack at seeing how the product experience extends into the shopping experience at the local Mall or perhaps how customers get support help within the company when the product has problems. Then those designers that realize what they want to do is more holistic aspects of just the software design itself can choose to move towards interface or software design, where there they can get into the full, total and complete design of software; the look and feel, the behaviors, the systems design, all of that stuff. To me, that road leads to everyone being happy, knowing full well what it is they do or what it is they might want to do. Remember... I'm the one who actually *wants* to defined by digital as the bedrock and core of the this area of the design world. Others, like you, Dan Saffer, Jeff Howard and a few others, seem to want to be something other than just digital. That's great and I wish you all the best of luck, but you (and I mean the singular "you" here, Dave) really have to stop making claims I'm the niche and you're not when it honestly has a everything to do with the base level assumption of the what defines the domain. So when I say "technology agnostic," I'm trying to say some want interaction design to not be tethered to digital or software, which has very big implications on what the actual skill set is to be expected of interaction designers. That's fine! I say more power to you! If that's what IxD is all about, then great. However -- and this is a very *big* however -- I simply ask those that call themselves "interaction designers" know this and help others outside of the design field to understand this. And know that in the realm of software and interface design, they are the surgeons, the specialists, not the generalists or the ones who are aiming to be holistic designers in the realm of digital or software design. So maybe I should be asking... Where are all the software and interface designers? -- 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
