To Dave's point: "So yes, an interaction designer can create great interactions without great visual design."
But many compelling interactions require great creative to give them emotive appeal - and as we have all read Norman's book - we know that emotive attraction IS perceived usability. Great IxDs don't need to be great visual designers - but they should team up with them and understand the power of attraction. Gestural interface interaction on the iPhone is great - but the GUI is sexy - it looks good and it feels good. I agree about MySpace - the visual design, to say the least and be kind - sucks sewer water through a strychnine-laced straw. I agree with Dave that the interaction design has been successful, but I think the IxD of MySpace is just as fetid - autoplay music anyone? Success yes - good IxD - notably horrid. On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:30 AM, David Malouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow! what a great conversation. > > I need to totally agree and forgive me also disagree. > For the types of artifacts (media) that is being discussed thus far > visual design in many respects is the receptical for the interactions > we are designing and thus the communication layer. Successful > interactions need to be communicated and need to respond to > communications and thus for the former to occur where relevant great > visual can help an interaction design immensely. > > Ok, here is where I disagree. > What about where vision is not in play? What about the interaction > design of gestural audio systems? So yes, an interaction designer > can create great interactions without great visual design. But that > doesn't mean he can do so without great care towards crafts of form. > > > Now the other disagreement is going back to the true spirit of the > original point, but I want to ask in a question. Where does > Craigslist, Google Maps and MySpace fall. > Yup, none of these have GREAT visual design, but arguably all 3 had > greatly successful interaction design, no? > > To me the greatest problem we have is that we actually do not have a > well articulated method for actually determining what is GREAT IxD. > There is no methods of "critique" in IxD that I have uncovered or > seen based in a strong relationship to both foundation and design > history which is are required for any design critique to be anything > other than well "opinion" and "utilitarian". > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=34316 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- ~ will "Where you innovate, how you innovate, and what you innovate are design problems" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will Evans | User Experience Architect tel: +1.617.281.1281 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] aim: semanticwill | gtalk: wkevans4 twitter: semanticwill | skype: semanticwill --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________ 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
