Hi David, On 29 Jan 2008, at 13:56, David Malouf wrote:
> HI Adrian (I wish the web version had better "quoting" features.) Me too! > see adrian's reply to me above ... > Yes, you can do both. You should do both, but you shouldn't do one > w/o the > other. I'm not saying that you are or aren't, but your posts (my > limited > insight into who you are) project that you are focusing on one > aspect, at > least in a unbalanced way, so I'm probably reacting in a further > unbalanced > way. If it's any comfort - I had the opposite unbalanced view of your focus (all "big" no "little".) Absolutely 100% both. No argument from me there. Not necessarily all of both in the same person (in my opinion anyway). Not necessarily all "big" or all "little in one role (in my opinion anyway). But all of those skills need to be in the product development team. What I'm not getting is the need/motive in drawing a ring around a particular subset of "big" things and naming it Interaction Design that can only be done by an Interaction Designer - which is what I mistakenly took to be your view. Folk with that view worry me. > As for studio. I understand how agile environments have become more > collaborative, but it is still not studio. It's hard to explain, > but what is > hard is that even in design studios today b/c of the focus on > computers, a > lot of the studio experience of ID is lost. Imagine if you had a > big wall > and on that wall was a projection of everyone's code, and everyone > can see > it. Imagine a place where people can see your name attributed to > your code, > and then if someone sees something they want to comment on, they > just walk > up to you and butt their noses right into your space and tell you > what they > think. Something like that. ;). > > There is a frenetic creativity (not > efficiency) that evolves from this environment. I'm not saying it > would work > for coding. That sounds exactly like an agile development environment to me. Seriously. That "if someone sees something they want to comment on, they just walkup to you and butt their noses right into your space and tell you what they think" is a thing joy and something to foster whatever you're doing. It's a bloody excellent way of working - ideally with coders and designers and business owners all together. In my opinion anyway. Possibly you need to try harder to explain the "hard to explain" :-) > As for what can this do? > Ok, here is the example. Cooper's concept on posture. I'm not > saying this is > a foundation of IxD, but it is a good axis. Understanding the > posture of > application will radically change the forms you use communicate the > interaction paradigms. You might have really similar task (i.e. > messaging) > but b/c email has a different posture than instant messaging (even > though in > reality they are REALLY the same thing), the forms take on a very > different > flow. Surely you don't have a similar task of "messaging". You have two radically different user goals, which you can describe with certain postures, which drive you towards certain kinds of interface... which both end up doing some sort of message passing.... The message passing isn't the point. I always saw postures a descriptive - not prescriptive myself. You work from the user goals to a solution, and along the way you get to a stage where you can say whether an interface is sovereign/transient/ parasitic/whatever-the-other-one-was-called. I don't suddenly get to a stage in the process where I go "We Shall develop a Sovereign Posture Application" :-) Instead a Sovereign Posture application emerges from the design constraints of the system as a whole. ... but it's been a long time since I've read About Face so I could be misremembering the way Cooper used them. ... but I get the point. There are issues in developing products that are "higher level" than the form. No argument from me. (Not seeing the connect with this and the design school stuff though...) > This in my mind explains two things: > 1. IxD exists outside the form. Don't see that. Not reliant on any _particular_ form maybe - but "outside" form... that doesn't sound quite right to me. Interdependent on form maybe. With a big damn fuzzy spot between the two. > 2. Understanding foundations can have a profound effect on your day > to day. Well duh :-) > I'll take it back to studio. > A real foundation of IxD is pacing. Like any narrative, there is > pacing. In > a studio setting what a student or practitioner might do is play with > various forms to embody different pacings. They would then hone in > on the > right source. > > This is very similar to how a graphic designer will do different > comps that > change specific axis of color, line, text, white space, etc. > > Unless we have the same foundations to sketch against, it is hard > for us in > a processed/controlled and explainable manner communicate the > differences > between different interaction models. They are just different, and > the only > way we can communicate about them is in terms of usability. Cool. The more techniques the better. Let's talk about them instead of what is/isn't Interaction Design :-) Cheers, Adrian ________________________________________________________________ *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
