William, I think there might be a good reason why interaction design has not been described as the science of art before.
Where design and art often share the same dimension and often overlap (Dunn & Raby are a good example), they most certainly are not same thing. And the science of interaction design certain does not produce the same results as purely artistic efforts. IxD has philosophical and psychological elements, but it cannot constitute such a grandiose ontology in the way that you have written. I believe we would be best to avoid descriptions of the practice and research which include adjectives like alchemy, unholy union, or psychological movement.. at least so nobody mistakes this forum for a cult. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40209 ________________________________________________________________ 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
