Tim McCoy takes on the post here: http://www.cooper.com/journal/2009/04/is_ixd_a_dead_end_job.html
Jamin Hedeman had a first post on the quote here: http://jamin.org/archives/2009/moggridge-says-interaction-design-may-be-unnecessary/ Here is how Jamin relates this: "One audience member asked Moggridge to reflect on defining interaction design as a discipline. In his response, he said that it was necessary at the time to define it as a discipline because software was so new and no one knew how to design it. But now that it’s pervasive, interaction design as a discipline may no longer be necessary." I think there are a few issues here: 1) Having just had a conversation with Bill Moggridge about a new program in IxD I'm creating I know he isn't saying that IxD is not necessary any longer and there is some aspect of this that doesn't feel right to me. So I'm going to project my own interpretation ... 2) I think the issue has to do with practice vs. discipline. In practice a separate role for IxD is probably growingly unnecessary. I don't think we are there yet, but people like Bill M. who surrounds himself with people "who get it" probably have a good grasp of the future ahead of us. I think Tim concurs with this. 3) Like I said discipline is not the same as practice. In order to maintain that people keep getting it and that we do a better job in total of everyone getting it better the discipline is still incredibly important and remains differentiated, or at least contextually differentiated in each medium. Anyway, what do other people think about this? -- dave -- Dave Malouf http://davemalouf.com/ http://twitter.com/daveixd http://scad.edu/industrialdesign http://ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ 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
