This is an interesting exercise. I think that moving forward we should actually look at those people who have either moved their conscious understanding of what they do to interaction design, or who currently understand what they do as interaction design.
Why do I say this. I might have "invented" in the past the most amazing interactive systems. BUT did they really practice interaction design, understand the success of that system as good interaction design? Maybe? maybe not? Can they now articulate using interaction design language what it was that made it successful in terms of interaction design? To me this is important. When Eames and Rand talk about their design, they talk about it as designers and understand the language of design around what they are doing. Maybe Verplank, Moggridge, Tog, and some others fit this bit, but many of the "engineers" that were mentioned, I doubt they do and I would suggest that we do need to understand the difference between engineering interactive systems and designing interactions. -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38833 ________________________________________________________________ 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
