I think we should "own" the design of interfaces.
In making this statement, is your intent to exclude all the other things we do? Not at all. I believe the interactive design process is, and should be, a rich and varied process which includes a wide variety of approaches, practices, skill sets, etc. Similarly, the architectural design process has many approaches (from the user-centered such as Christopher Alexanders Pattern Language, to the Frank Lloyd Wright design-from-inspiration approach), many practices (skyscrapers, landscape, public spaces, residential, commercial) and skill sets (draftsmen, designers, researchers etc. the usual span of skills required for a team process). But there is no question in the average persons mind that all the approaches, practices and skill sets involved dovetail for the purpose of designing buildings. If one takes a giant step back from our profession, one can see that all design processes, ours included, that require a team (architecture, industrial design, advertising, mechanical design, all come to mind), tend to develop specialties. And the specialties tend to follow the same pattern: the design team needs to know who the design is for and what it needs to accomplish, what are the budgets and materials (whether steel or code) that the team has to work with, and to have an iterative design process that methodically integrates input and critique. We would be naïve to think that interaction design/usability/experience design is solving completely new problems. Rather, I would say, interaction design/usability/experience design is solving the same problems as architecture and industrial design has to solve, but we are solving the problems within the medium of digital interfaces. Again, if we take a giant step back from our profession and compare it to other team design processes you will see many similarities across the methodologies employed but the one thing that stands out as the difference between our profession and architecture is the medium we apply our design process to interfaces. So, I advocate that we embrace that defining difference the medium in order to differentiate ourselves from other design disciplines. The other path is to define interactive design as an approach (with specific practices) that can be applied to the design of nearly everything. I understand and appreciate that this is a valid way to view and promote interaction design. My concern about that direction is that interaction design could simply become a trend that passes, and is passed up and made irrelevant by a newer more trendy approach. Approaches come and go but the medium is here to stay. Architecture constantly evolves (new practices, new approaches, new materials, new challenges) but the medium buildings remains the central purpose of the profession. I am advocating that we move forward with the aim to establish in the average persons mind that all the approaches, practices and skill sets involved in interactive design dovetail for the purpose of designing interfaces that facilitate rich interaction. Those interfaces can reside on the dash board of a car, the handle bar of a really cool lawn mower, a mobile device, a refrigerator door, or a computer but the commonality is that they all have interfaces that allow rich interaction. Joseph Selbie Founder, CEO Tristream Web Application Design http://www.tristream.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
