Wow! what a great conversation. I need to totally agree and forgive me also disagree. For the types of artifacts (media) that is being discussed thus far visual design in many respects is the receptical for the interactions we are designing and thus the communication layer. Successful interactions need to be communicated and need to respond to communications and thus for the former to occur where relevant great visual can help an interaction design immensely.
Ok, here is where I disagree. What about where vision is not in play? What about the interaction design of gestural audio systems? So yes, an interaction designer can create great interactions without great visual design. But that doesn't mean he can do so without great care towards crafts of form. Now the other disagreement is going back to the true spirit of the original point, but I want to ask in a question. Where does Craigslist, Google Maps and MySpace fall. Yup, none of these have GREAT visual design, but arguably all 3 had greatly successful interaction design, no? To me the greatest problem we have is that we actually do not have a well articulated method for actually determining what is GREAT IxD. There is no methods of "critique" in IxD that I have uncovered or seen based in a strong relationship to both foundation and design history which is are required for any design critique to be anything other than well "opinion" and "utilitarian". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34316 ________________________________________________________________ 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
