Hi Andrei, I'm not sure why you went that way. I totally agree that its in the artifact (the DESIGN) that we need to look at the designer and not the thinking. In fact, I don't think that I was even suggesting looking at the "designer" at all, nor their thinking.
I thought I was suggesting 2 things: 1) that in choosing what might go into a timeline we develop criteria for what is a great example of interaction design. 2) I would also suggest that not every great invention is great interaction design. I.e. the cotton gin was instrumental in industrializing the production of cotton, but is that great IxD? I have no idea! There are a host of inventions that were culture changing for good or bad that I'm not sure were good IxD.But then I haven't seen the answer to #1 suggestion. To be clear at no time was I suggesting that we should judge anyone on the basis of their thinking. THOUGH I do think there were pioneers in design education who we may want to judge on the work of their students, and their total contribution to the field/discipline, but to me this is a different but still important category. -- 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
