The definition of IxD I currently favor is: A design approach that seeks to harmonize the behaviors of products, environments, and systems with the behaviors of target users, in order to produce optimal outcomes.
As in previous definitions I've proposed, form is a means of manifesting, supporting, or reflecting behavior and thus also a concern of IxD, but secondary to the behavior itself. Optimal outcomes may include not only the immediate experience of users, but short, medium and long term outcomes for both users and anyone / anything affected by the design. To me what makes IxD important as an approach (if not a discipline in its own right) is its unique focus on behavior (and the aesthetics thereof) rather than form. In practice, as others have stated, there is not much difference between the terms "interface design" and IxD, except that "interface" as a term is not very explicit about the medium of exchange between human and artifact being behavior, whereas IxD highlights this fact. I therefore feel it is a more appropriately descriptive term that cuts to the chase of the design activity involved. "Interface" design also implies the design of a control surface (and the term comes from an era when relatively unsophisticated GUIs were slapped on top of piles of code), while interaction clearly reaches far beneath the surface to define the entire purpose of a product or service. A matter of semantics? Perhaps, but sometimes semantics are important if they can bring clarity to the task at hand. Robert. Robert Reimann IxDA Seattle Associate Creative Director frog design Seattle, WA On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Kurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, somebody has to be unpopular... > > I don't think there is a difference really, in that Interaction > Design IMHO is not long for this world as a stand-alone discipline. > There are many, many kinds of designers, from architects to interface > designers to interior designers. Any field of design needs to > consider the interaction of the viewer or the user, else who are we > designing for? > > With the advent of web design, job titles got a little screwy. > Trying to keep up with who does what on a web team from company to > company is like playing whack-a-mole. At one place I'm a web > designer, at another I'm the IA, at another I'm the user experience > architect, yada, yada, yada. > > I'm glad that there has been a push to bring web design's focus > back towards the practical considerations of interaction. That said > though, I don't think we'll be looking at Interaction Designers as a > separate practice in a few years, and academically I think it will > settle in as a sub-field within psychology, e.g. cognitive studies. > > Just my opinion, I swear I'm not trolling! > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34525 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
