Great reflexions, but I strongly disagree with the basic assertion. What gave birth to that "Technology first"? Airplane for what? Radio for what?
A miracle? Or an accident? Well, accidents did give rise to technologies in the past, but none of those mentioned in the article. The biggest missing thing here is that no technology comes up in a vacuum. And the fact that the inventor did not make any research efforts does not prove the invention didn´t come from a real human need: they saw the "hidden need" with bare eyes, then a tecnological insight, and only then, dedicated their lives to make it. But one thing is true: the technology innovation turns something possible, only then the design innovations can make better use for it. A new technology is like a new tool in a designer´s toolbox of insights. So it is even clearer to me that the article draw the lines between technology (or possibility) and design (form and behavior). So I would dare to correct the assertion, and add "A genious´s lone observation and insight first", which DID come from quiet observation of needs, that took an audacious technical alchemist´s mind(s) to believe in it. ________________________________________________________________ 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
