Hi Charlie, I shuddered when I read your top 10. I wrote 5 pages and deleted all b/c I was really upset when writing it.
I think that you need to re-think the above in the context of IxDA a bit more. The pull to generalize and break down walls feels noble, but it is in that light of UPA and CHI trying to own UX that IxDA was born. It didn't work and doesn't work b/c it doesn't respect the REAL differentiation of culture and practice and discipline that exists among *designers* from other parts of the UX puzzle. The other big piece is that people ARE succeeding as interaction designers who partner with form makers/designers and engineers. Your supposition that it is just about the "interface" is wrong. i agree w/ Andrei's approach b/c he thinks about it from the direction of his practice, but I disagree with the approach when thinking about the discipline of interaction design. The model does not scale across all practices and all cultural types. There is great need to have experts in behavior separate from expert in form and thus there is a definite definable discipline called "interaction design" separate from research, structure (IA), form, and validation. They all inform and guide each other, but they are not each other. It seems that you are looking for a UXNet model. They are about to up the ante on their message and value proposition, so your message may be more in line with theirs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=26170 ________________________________________________________________ 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
