I'm glad to see the passion in the voices here. They represent a wide range of experiences and viewpoints. Issues as complex and potentially contentious as definition and identity are difficult to explore within the significant constraints of a text-based forum. Those of us that have participated in online forums for a couple of decades or more have seen this again and again.
One of the amazingly wonderful things about Interaction08 in Savannah was the opportunity to have higher bandwidth discussions about these issues with people face to face. Sometimes one-on-one and sometimes in small groups. I was particularly impressed by the diversity of practice and experience that was represented there, even if not all were of equal slices of our big pie. First off, I would suggest that the arguments that we see today have been around for a long time. They are not likely to be resolved today, nor in the near term. In the mean time, I'd encourage seeking both common ground as well as an appreciate and respect for the practices and experiences of those that approach Interaction Design in different ways. I also think that personal experiences and histories are important as single datapoints that altogether make up the Interaction Design cloud, with it's actual non-regular topology and distribution. Yes, there are areas of the cloud that contain many doing a similar thing or practicing in a similar way. But outliers, particularly if they identify as or have long practices as Interaction Designers, are also important. Perhaps they serve an underserved sector. Perhaps they have developed a valuable approach that others would benefit from by learning about. Much of the work of Interaction Designers involves the digital and/or software, but not always. When practicing as an Interaction Designer on the development of equipment and equipment environments, there are often non-digital elements that people interact with. Design of these as part of the whole, even when other parts may indeed involve digital or software components, is also Interaction Design. I know that I am not alone among those who have experience practicing Interaction Design in products and enviroments who will continue to see our identies as Interaction Designers in these terms. And this is as it should be. What the Building Architects, Industrial Designers, and Graphic Designers do correctly as groups however, is put the focus on the work, not the words, definitions, and identities. If the work of Interaction Design escapes beyond defined boundaries, then it's the work that will have the greatest impact in the real world and will serve as the best example for others to learn from. Given the sheer joy and relief at finally feeling "home" that I sensed among so many of the Interaction08 attendees, I'm just not worried at all that our great organization is in danger of losing out to other organizations out of a lack of narrow definition. Embrace the diversity. Spotlight the real-world work. Seek to map the work and experiences of our members. Recognize the value of the outliers rather than discarding them as not representative. James Leftwich, IDSA CXO SeeqPod, Inc. 6475 Christie Avenue, Ste. 475 Emeryville, CA 94608 http://www.seeqpod.com Orbit Interaction Palo Alto, California USA mobile: (650) 387-2550 Skype: jimwich [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.orbitnet.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimwich Director, IxDA / http://www.ixda.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
