There certainly is a lot of crossover between this thread and the one
on 'What to teach interaction design students' - and the heart of both
topics seems to center around language and understanding. First,
needing to have a clearly articulated definition of the discipline and
it's relationship and differentiation from those related. That has
been explored well here and it's clear that it is a continuum - there
are some whose talents overlap ranging from theoretical to the
practical. (I love the author/illustrator analogy, and I'd add David
Macaulay to that list!) Think 'theory of interaction' on through
interface design, prototyping and the skills to actually develop the
site/application/device. It's a rare few that can competently do all
of those things, but there are certainly more who can do much and
direct the rest effectively. What Dave has brought up here and in the
other thread is a need to effectively critique the work - both by
students and I'd say also by practitioners 'out in the world'. In
developing the right language and vocabularies to effectively
critique, and therefore explain (!) the work. This is vital to the
education process and equally so in conveying the value and
effectiveness of work being done. In visual design there are more
known vocabularies for describing and evaluating design from an
aesthetic point of view. However in interface design (such as for the
web or a software application) there are additional concerns around
usability (affected by the interaction design), how well it solves
business objectives and how well/efficiently it can be produced. There
is beauty to be found in all - or perhaps at least elegance. The
vocabularies to describe a beautiful code solution versus a truly
elegant business solution versus a completely intuitive interaction
solution are all quite different from the set of words and phrases
applied when evaluating color, composition and 'visual tension' found
in a great piece of visual design (a painting, a print, a poster or a
software interface). In actuality some of the words may be the same,
but the theory and criteria with which they are applied is quite
different.
So I think that to answer either thread (what's the difference or what
to teach) we must first be able to describe and understand both what
is entailed in any of these disciplines and how one can describe
'success' in any of them. From there it's easier to say 'I'm an
interaction designer' or 'I'm an interface designer' or in someone
like Andrei's situation, I'd say that he's more than either in that he
may think of himself as an interaction designer primarily, but having
the ability to perform and/or direct what comes after (interface/
visual design and the actual prototyping and production of the end
product) is definitely a broader role. I think we all live in worlds
where it flows from Dave's situation of being surrounded by other
experts so he can focus solely on interaction design and others like
myself and other in this thread who by necessity or desire involve
themselves in other surrounding roles. It doesn't diminish the
importance of any one of them, but without the language to articulate
the differences and importance of the various distinct disciplines
then there will always be a danger of important tasks and roles being
eliminated from the world.
Cheers,
Jason
________________________________________________________________
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