On Jun 23, 2008, at 6:02 PM, dave malouf wrote:
Ok, on to Andrei, "interface" vs. "interaction". I can see how easy these terms can be interchangeable as well as hierarchical. But we have to make a decision and it seems that while you have been using interface for quite some time the rest of the world has moved on to interaction, no?
Oh really? Just five or so years ago people were saying the thing was "experience design." Dan even has that as his title. And yet that term has seemingly lost a lot of its popularity. I see it less and less these days compared to five years ago. Maybe it's still going strong, but I don't see it.
Once you get past the perception problem created by plenty of folks who call themselves "interaction designers" that they don't draw or do any of that touchy feely artsy stuff, and once you acknowledge that being an "interaction" designer means you also focus on aesthetics since the term "interaction" implies nothing of the sort, that you deal with business concerns, and that you need a solid programming background so that you could build prototypes to some degree of fidelity, then you'll need a good 5 years solid of making sure the term isn't a fad.
After that... THEN I'll be ok with it. Until then, I'm still an interface designer and I'll continue to be one since it's easier to explain what I do to people who write the checks than to try and explain, "well, I define the interaction *AND* I do a lot more at the same time." I'd rather just tell them right out of the gate that I design, prototype and help build the entire interface up front. It's just so much easier.
I REALLY have to beg you to give this one up. I think it is a loosing battle.
Until you and the IxDA define that the work that is done is more than just the "interaction" part, I will not concede any ground. Why should I? Why should I effectively look at people and say, "oh, I do less than I used to." Or why should I muddy up my message just to make other people happy when it's really easier to say I create interfaces and that includes design, prototyping and building?
And in point of fact, Dan Saffer has added "typography" into the definition of interaction. I distinctly remember years ago when this was not the case; that to consider needing a typography background for an interaction designer? That was touchy feely artsy stuff. Why should I concede? Apparently my strategy is working. People are slowly saying, "yeah, we need to do more design in this interaction thing." I'll keep egging on about color and composition as well. Why? Because it's needed! Further, it's not that much more once you've piled on Industrial Design fundamentals, where understanding type, color and composition is great foundation work for both ID and GD.
Losing battle? I take the long view on everything. The only way you'll know that I've lost is probably 20 years after I'm dead. And I plan on living longer than you. 8^)
But the fact that more and more people are saying that a lot of the multidisciplinary design knowledge is needed seems to imply I'm losing nothing of the sort. I've told you this person many times, but you seem to not believe me, or you aren't hearing me properly: I honestly don't care what it's called. What I care about is that I'm allowed to control, define, be held accountable for, and get credit for what I design. And that I don't want anyone to get in my way when I do so because they've silo'd me off from touching aspects of the product since "interaction" designers don't do that. At the same, I've found in my career it's easier to explain what I do when I label myself after what I design. I design interfaces, that makes it easy.
You want me to call myself an interaction designer? I'll gladly do so when I it doesn't make my life harder explaining and getting accountability for what it is that I actually do.
Note: I don't argue about needing an introduction to Cog Psych nor Programming, as outlined in Dan's course suggestion. I agree... they are required! The difference between you and me Dave is that I've *ALWAYS* said the practice is varied and requires more. Others -- and yourself included -- have said it doesn't need so much. It appears people are finally coming around to my point of view on a lot of things, including you.
More design please. That's what it's always been about for me. Is there a point where its too much? Sure! But Industrial designers and Architects have FAR more they are required to learn than anyone in software or digital product design. We have quite a ways to go before out cup runeth over.
Interface design is the language used in semiotic, symbolic, metaphoric, etc. forms that is used to build interfaces with. These can be combined, collated, coordinated and coalesced into controls, buttons, knobs, switches, etc. to create a metaphor around affordances to communicate the behaviors (input receivers and feedback mechanisms) that make up virtual and physical products with digital intelligences.
Um. Could you restate please? But use English this time. -- 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
