Let me be more concise: If you don't have a final "thing" that you can interact with; you haven't completed the design process.
I understand that design is more than craft (I shouldn't have been so absolute), but I do not believe in "design thinking" in so far as you can't design without craft. Modeling, simulations, prototypes, etc. are required. Narrative text and flat images are not good enough when it comes to learning how to do interaction design. Even if the master's thesis is looking at something precise, that precision should be about the interaction and thus should require the right level of modeling that presents the foundations surrounding that interaction at whose core is TIME! If you can't experience over time, then you didn't do interaction design. Maybe the masters degree is not in interaction design and thus this requirement is moot. I am in agreement that it does not have to be a complete final product and I said that implicitly by saying that I agree with Jonas' comments. -- dave On Dec 13, 2007 11:47 AM, Mark Schraad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday, December 13, 2007, at 11:25AM, "David Malouf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >Jack, is this a design degree or a research degree? A design degree is > >about craft. Craft is about making. > > Design is not the same as build - and design is not strictly craft. Design > is designing... is is an intangible process that in most cases results in an > artifact. That artifact may be a conceptual representation of the final > result. There are very important differentiations here. For many designers, > they are done at the plan stage. Again we circle around to this 'what is > design' issue, but IMHO it is much larger than craft. > > > > >to answer Mark, an architect IS expected to build something. Either > >in 3D tools creating walk through virtual spaces, or to build in > >balsa and other materials a representation of the space. > > No - he builds a simulation or prototype. It can be in the plan > descriptions (text), a physical model (materials) or a virtual model (code), > but it is not necessarily the final result as stated in the original > question. > > > > >They are required to do this, so that anyone who comes to the piece > >understands what the designer is trying to communicate. If all i > >delievered was a sketch and blueprints, this would not come through. > > > >I think Jonas nailed in on the head. You have to be able to > >prototype, b/c if you can't interact with the solution, you haven't > >actually made something that has interaction design modeled enough to > >communicate those interactions. The subtelties of IxD require that > >transition, flow, and movement are all part of the ending "make" > >deliverable. Everything else is just falling short of the real need. > >At the masters level you have to make something. > > > > A master's degree, and especially a Ph.D, is typically about specificity. > Focusing on a portion of a process is often the only way to get that finite. > > > >This is very different from a deployable and production ready system. > > > >-- dave > > -- David Malouf http://synapticburn.com/ http://ixda.org/ http://motorola.com/ ________________________________________________________________ *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://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
