On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:56 AM, dave malouf wrote: > Aesthetics is HUGE. > And understanding fundamentals of communication design (Visual, > audio, 3D, spatial, etc.) is at the core of a good IxD education/ > training career path.
Then this is either not agreed upon or not well understood at large. I suspect it's both, but mostly the former. (And even in looking at the Interaction 08 speaker schedule, aesthetics seems a million miles away in the conference.) Further, the whole interaction/visual designer split used in most technology companies today further entrenches interaction design as a field that is not also about aesthetics. I can't tell you how many "interaction" designers I meet that say things along the lines of "I don't draw the buttons, I just work with someone else that does." This is a massive problem if the field is to be inclusive and support digital product and software design. And has been since people have been replacing "interface" designers with "interaction" designers, and in the process creating a divide where interaction people as a profession are given a means to avoid practicing and being responsible for aesthetics, even if on a particular team for a particular project they are do not need to exercise those skills. If aesthetics are indeed fundamental to interaction design, then it also trickles down to skills and knowledge. Interaction designers SHOULD know how to use tools like Photoshop, Illustrator, Fireworks or other professional grade tools and state so on their resumes. Even 3D software if it means that. And by know how to use, I mean really know how to use. Industrial designers use Illustrator all the time to make isometric drawings! And learning a 3D program is far more complicated than Illustrator, and Industrial designers are also trained on those as well. The requirements and expectations in aesthetics for industrial designers far exceeds what current interaction designers are expected to know, and that's a problem if IxD is supposed to be more inclusive. > If I understood the spirit, I would say, that yes, IxD's have to > understand and quite often DO UI Design. On their own or as a pair? If on their own, which also means being able to draw icons if that's what required to make the product real, then we are in agreement. The whole team approach and pairing of skillsets is a means to an end, not the definition of what the person needs to be able to design. Or how they are trained as a designer. Teams are needed for a variety of reasons -- workloads, project scale, collaboration, idea generation, etc. -- but when a team is not needed or not possible due to a variety of factors, if a business executive hires an "interaction" designer, I think that exec should expect the interaction designer to be able design the total product. > So is UI Designer:Interaction Designer : designer what thoracic > surgeon: surgeon : doctor? Quick sidenote: I loathe the acronym "UI." It's so arcane. I just prefer "interface." Is Interface Designer: Interaction Designer:Design like Thoracic Surgeon:Surgeon:Medicine? If the core skills of the interaction field require aesthetic, then I could see how that is tenable and even desirable. However, it would *require* a change in definition of: http://ixda.org/about_interaction.php "Interaction design (IxD) is the branch of user experience design that illuminates the relationship between people and the interactive products they use. While interaction design has a firm foundation in the theory, practice, and methodology of traditional user interface design, its focus is on defining the complex dialogues that occur between people and interactive devices of many type -- from computers to mobile communications devices to appliances." On that page, there is nary a requirement for interaction designers to also be steeped in aesthetics. And again, it even encourages someone who calls themselves an interaction designer to be paired with others who are trained in aesthetics: "While interaction designers often work closely with specialists in visual design, information architecture, industrial design, user research, or usability, and may even provide some of these services themselves, their primary focus is on defining interactivity." And there's that word again: "defining." Designers don't define. They make and create and design, and as often as possible with their own two hands. > I realize this might have leaped a lot onto the conversation. But > what it means is that an interface designer IS an interaction > designer, but not all interaction designers are interface designers > and not all designers are interaction designers. That would be true only if aesthetics is indeed required as part of the definition of an IxD. My take and fear on this is that "aesthetics" are deemed to be not needed in other aspects of interaction, and are therefore not required as a core skill. That actually winds up being exclusive, not inclusive. Lacking that core skill or focus at the higher definition of IxD trickles down to the medium, and it winds up actually placing walls and barriers in ways that make IxD narrowly focused in the trenches, rather than broad enough to cover what's needed to do the job, which in this particular case would be aesthetic skills and knowledge. Interaction design that requires screens and displays require aesthetics to be successful. -- Andrei Herasimchuk Principal, Involution Studios innovating the digital world e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] c. +1 408 306 6422 ________________________________________________________________ *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
