Re: [IxDA Discuss] d schools
I also have an editorial background, fwiw. I think you do need a web portfolio if you wish to be hireable by shops that do primarily web work. (Not sure Ideo fits that category.) You could create that portfolio yourself in your copious free time (personal site/blog, sites for others, volunteer for nonprofits, etc.), or you could go to design school or to some new-media school and be forced to create a portfolio of sites and applications as class projects. -xian- On 11/1/07, Wesley Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, given that: 1. I have content origins 2. I haven't had to make a web site in 6.5 years 3. I have 10 years experience, including some web experience, and have designed lots of non-web interactive products 4. I'd like to be able to work for companies other than a toy company Do I need to go back to design school if I want to be hireable by a company that values great interaction design? Or do I just need to get my butt in gear and create an awesome online portfolio using as many of the latest web technologies, since I don't have to create web stuff for work? -- Christian Crumlish http://xianlandia.com Yahoo! pattern detective http://developer.yahoo.com/ypatterns IA Institute director of technology http://iainstitute.org *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] d schools
Chris wrote: The theory behind design thinking d-schools is, to me, this: Design is important. Too important to be managed by those fuzzy people who actually do design. It's time for designers to step aside and allow themselves to be led by a new generation of MBAs who have taken a couple of courses about design (but who don't do design). In all my reading on the ideas, theory, and processes of Design Thinking, my views are actually the opposite. I think it actually empowers designers and moves them up earlier in the process. Sure - some Design Thinking is being applied to business processes much in the way that TQM and all those other process aconyms became fads over the past 20 years. But - from the reading I have been doing, there is the opportunity such that designers/IxD folks are no longer downstream from the business analyst doing the problem definition and requirements gathering. Now designers are right up front helping to think within the problem space, exploring ideas, using abductive thinking (and teaching it to other team members), such that a plethora of ideas are generated well before requirements are solidified. Am I too starry eyed? After all my reading, I have begun to draft some ideas about a process (nothing new there :-), but to Dan and Chris' point - we only become design morlochs if we don't take control of the process. A few classes in design is not going to ingrain real strategic design thinking in any mba. There is simply no way that a semester can supplant 10, 15 years of real world problem solving through design. On the other hand - i think this d.school thing is a fad. At least the name, as such. Plenty of schools have offered combined MBA/Design masters degrees - I have one and from what I can tell - there isn't much difference accept for the fact that schools like CM, Indiana, Bentley, have been doing it alot longer, have a more seasoned curriculum, and a deep well of connected graduates. my 2 cents :-} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://gamma.ixda.org/discuss?post=21093 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] d schools
Thanks Will and Jean-Anne for the thoughtful advice! JA, I'll definitely be contacting to hear more about your Berkeley iSchool experience. Thank you! Here's my specific dilemma (if anybody out there has an opinion!), and why I'm trying to figure out if I need to get an MFA/MS/M.Des degree: I work for Leapfrog toys as a senior designer. I've been designing (and sometimes producing) videogames, and interactive books and toys for them for 6.5 years. It's very idiosyncratic work. Building web sites is NOT part of my job. Instead I do a variety of things like: figuring out social play patterns for a toy, or what the UI should be for a videogame (and also how all the subleveling works, and the level design, etc; really designing the whole thing), or how to best marry the content interaction with the industrial design of a toy. And: I used to be a content person. I have a Master's degree in Literature, not design! I came to design organically by way of editorial. First I made magazines in the mid-late 90s (Game Developer mag), then I worked on web stuff in late 90s til the bust (Gamasutra.com, Macromedia.com), and I've been with Leapfrog since then. So I have 10+ years work experience, and I've learned design by making all sorts of interactive things. I've done tons of designs, scripts, experience flows, ethonographic research, user testing, etc. But I'm worried that elsewhere in the industry my content roots and experience designing interactive videogames/books/toys instead of web will provoke a tsk-tsk, can she really do interaction design? response. And heck, some days, I wonder myself. Do I have the skills I need? I suffer from self-doubt. I'm considered skilled at Leapfrog. But it's such an unusual place, making such unusual products. I wonder, some days, if my skillset is appropriate in the wider world. I've tried to make sure I skill up whenever I need to, by occasionally taking a class in say, the Architecture department at Berkeley extension, or a drawing class, or a class or two at the Multimedia Studies program over at SFState. And I read a ton. But I'm not sure this is enough. I want to be sure that I stay competitive, and can do design work for companies other than a toy company :) I can't stay at LF forever. I'd like to be hireable by an agency like IDEO or Jump or Adaptive Path one day, so that I can work on ALL SORTS of products or web projects -- and eventually lead a design team (sometimes I mentor/lead juniors here, and really enjoy that). I enjoy the project strategy work, too --- figuring out how to balance the design, business production needs. And I'd like to be able to use that elsewhere as well. I'm not sure those same agencies would think my skillset and background was appropriate. So, given that: 1. I have content origins 2. I haven't had to make a web site in 6.5 years 3. I have 10 years experience, including some web experience, and have designed lots of non-web interactive products 4. I'd like to be able to work for companies other than a toy company Do I need to go back to design school if I want to be hireable by a company that values great interaction design? Or do I just need to get my butt in gear and create an awesome online portfolio using as many of the latest web technologies, since I don't have to create web stuff for work? I'm curious what this list thinks :) On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 03:23:15, Will Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris wrote: The theory behind design thinking d-schools is, to me, this: Design is important. Too important to be managed by those fuzzy people who actually do design. It's time for designers to step aside and allow themselves to be led by a new generation of MBAs who have taken a couple of courses about design (but who don't do design). In all my reading on the ideas, theory, and processes of Design Thinking, my views are actually the opposite. I think it actually empowers designers and moves them up earlier in the process. Sure - some Design Thinking is being applied to business processes much in the way that TQM and all those other process aconyms became fads over the past 20 years. But - from the reading I have been doing, there is the opportunity such that designers/IxD folks are no longer downstream from the business analyst doing the problem definition and requirements gathering. Now designers are right up front helping to think within the problem space, exploring ideas, using abductive thinking (and teaching it to other team members), such that a plethora of ideas are generated well before requirements are solidified. Am I too starry eyed? After all my reading, I have begun to draft some ideas about a process (nothing new there :-), but to Dan and Chris' point - we only become design morlochs if we don't take control of the process. A few classes in design is not going to ingrain real strategic design thinking in any mba. There is simply no way that a semester can supplant 10, 15 years
Re: [IxDA Discuss] d schools
Well, I went and raised my voice about the d-school question over at Bruce Nussbaum's blog at BusinessWeek, asking him about the role of real designers in the world of design thinking -- essentially arguing that we are not (to quote Dan Saffer's hilarious analogy) production Morlochs who exist to do the bidding of d-school educated design thinking strategists. And lo and behold he stepped up and responded to my thoughts. A conversation is ensuing: http://tinyurl.com/3869at Cheers, -Cf Christopher Fahey Behavior biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com me: http://www.graphpaper.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] d schools
Nice job of pushing this discussion forward and upward Chris! Mark On Wednesday, October 10, 2007, at 12:43PM, Christopher Fahey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I went and raised my voice about the d-school question over at Bruce Nussbaum's blog at BusinessWeek, asking him about the role of real designers in the world of design thinking -- essentially arguing that we are not (to quote Dan Saffer's hilarious analogy) production Morlochs who exist to do the bidding of d-school educated design thinking strategists. And lo and behold he stepped up and responded to my thoughts. A conversation is ensuing: http://tinyurl.com/3869at Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] d schools
On Oct 8, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Wesley Hall wrote: If you're an old guard designer with 10 years experience but no formal design training, is it worth it to attend d.school? I'm confident in my design thinking at this point. But I'd like to: A. Brush up on core design visual design skills B. Play with technologies I don't have to design for in my job C. Interact collaboratively with lots of bright folks who don't work for my company D. Get a graduate degree so that I stay competitive in my field Is that a match of d.school or not? These are nearly the exact reasons I went back to graduate school after working in the field for ~8 years. Look at the core curriculum at any graduate design school and see if it matches what you want to get out of it. Ask where their graduates go to work after school. Talk to not just professors there but also to current students and alumni. Students and alumni will likely give you the straight dope on what the school actually trains you to do. That in mind, a school with design thinking and a business/strategy focus is probably going to give you lots of C and D. Probably less of A and B. Good luck! Dan Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] d schools
Most people hire by degree now anyway, so view it as a business decision and go for it. You'll add a fifth of your salary again and get first place in the cheese line at company parties. --- Dan Saffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 8, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Wesley Hall wrote: If you're an old guard designer with 10 years experience but no formal design training, is it worth it to attend d.school? I'm confident in my design thinking at this point. But I'd like to: A. Brush up on core design visual design skills B. Play with technologies I don't have to design for in my job C. Interact collaboratively with lots of bright folks who don't work for my company D. Get a graduate degree so that I stay competitive in my field Is that a match of d.school or not? These are nearly the exact reasons I went back to graduate school after working in the field for ~8 years. Look at the core curriculum at any graduate design school and see if it matches what you want to get out of it. Ask where their graduates go to work after school. Talk to not just professors there but also to current students and alumni. Students and alumni will likely give you the straight dope on what the school actually trains you to do. That in mind, a school with design thinking and a business/strategy focus is probably going to give you lots of C and D. Probably less of A and B. Good luck! Dan Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://gamma.ixda.org/help http://technical-writing.dionysius.com/ technical writing | consulting | development Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] d schools
Faith, IT functions lead to CIO's, not CTO's. CTO's rarely ever become CEO's (and probably shouldn't to be honest). And you are dead-on about dollars... So much easier for sales and marketing to create concrete metrics associated with dollars than for design! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Faith Peterson Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 10:14 AM To: IxDA Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] d schools Interesting discussion. Historically the path to the executive suite has lain through functions closely tied to revenue. For a while it was sales or marketing. There was a fashion for coming up through finance. Back in the day it was often through ops or production. But in every case the route up the management ladder was easier the closer to the revenue stream or corportate financial performance was one's role. The most similar recent precedent I can think of is the rise of the CTO. Has anyone heard if CTOs are being called up to the Chief Exectutive level? And how many CTOs have come up through network ops or apps dev rather than from IT-consuming functions? The CTO role came about at least in part because technology proved itself over a generation as a profitability driver. Lots of data were generated and collected through various process and productivity improvements and cost savings initiatives to make technology's impact visible. But given the number of articles in recent years about how IT has to learn to tie its work more closely to a companies business strategy, I'd guess that CTO influence might have been quite limited until recently. I should think that designers getting to the C-level will depend on their demonstrating revenue impact, whereas in many companies it's still seen as a cost impact. Of course, in companies whose primary product is software then design and development folks are on the production path and therefore much more likely to reach the top level - because they are production leaders, not directly because they might be design leaders. It really comes down to quantifying rather than merely asserting design's contribution to corporate financial performance. As always looking forward to others' throughts. Faith -- Faith Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: faithpeterson http://www.linkedin.com/in/fpeterson IxDA | IAInstitute | IIBA | CSM On 10/7/07, Mark Schraad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The CEO of the future can be the chief experience officer. At least how it plays out in my scenario planning. Mark On Oct 7, 2007, at 9:48 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote: I don't understand why those of us who design things keep praising d-schools and design thinking. It seems to me that the purpose of a D- School is to rob us designers of a career path and to allow MBAs to manage us instead of allowing us to pull ourselves up into corporate management. Christopher Fahey Behavior biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com me: http://www.graphpaper.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://gamma.ixda.org/help Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] d schools
On Oct 7, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote: The theory behind design thinking d-schools is, to me, this: Design is important. Too important to be managed by those fuzzy people who actually do design. It's time for designers to step aside and allow themselves to be led by a new generation of MBAs who have taken a couple of courses about design (but who don't do design). This is the most cynical take I've ever seen on design thinking. I approve, although I doubt it was as insidious as this. It was likely, Our numbers are flat. Hey, those design folks have neat ideas and a different process than what we do. How can we get some of that? And thus, design thinking was born. And I don't begrudge them this. If more business people become aware of design and use its processes to come up with new ideas, more power to them. But this is not design, and what I think you are reacting to is the promotion (and teaching) of design thinking as design, or, worse, as better, more refined, than design itself. I've said it before and I'll say it again: thinking is only one (essential) part of design. Divorcing thinking from making reduces design to concepting. And while concepting is valuable, the detail work in making a concept come alive is equally so. Concepts are much easier to have than finished, designed products. Design thinking advocates seem to think some Morloch will finish the concept for them, outsourcing the details somewhere. But it is in the detail work that design really happens, that the clever, delightful moments of design really flourish. Those are as important, if not moreso, than the concept itself. Beautiful typography, smooth animations and transitions, logical interactions...these are where we earn our money and our respect. Dan Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] d schools
nice article on desgin talent and d-schools on this morning's bweek Mark http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/di_special/20071005d-schools.htm?chan=innovation_innovation+%2B+design_top+stories Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] List Guidelines http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://beta.ixda.org/help Unsubscribe http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe Questions .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home ... http://beta.ixda.org
