On 10 Aug 2009, at 13:16, Jason Robb wrote:
What if we think of innovation in terms of potential and active
states?
If you have an innovative idea, but don't have the resources to
implement it, it still may be innovative. But if it's not
implemented, it's just a potential for innovation.
If you put that great idea into action, and implement the design,
it's active innovation.
Does this change anything? Am I just stating the obvious?
Yeah - I sort of feel that way too. You don't actually have innovation
unless you make something and it works.
Dunno.... I don't really think of my work in terms of innovative
and... erm.. whatever the antonym of "innovative" is... "traditional"?
Innovative in comparison to what?
Innovative for whom?
Is that a binary distinction or a continuum?
Some folk seem to apply the word to anything new/different even if
it's not actually a good/appropriate solution. Is it really innovative
if if it doesn't actually work?
Some clients see some solutions as new and scary because they've not
encountered them before. Does that count as innovative?
Mildly puzzled.
Cheers,
Adrian
--
http://quietstars.com - twitter.com/adrianh - delicious.com/adrianh
________________________________________________________________
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
