Again - I think the importance here is 'intentionality' - Galileo
could not possibly think of himself or his work as interaction design
but if I ripped open my time machine and presented Englebart with IxD
as I understand it, he would jump on board, until he jumped off it
again because his real intention was actually augmenting human memory
and thinking and had nothing to do with designing behaviors or 15
other definitions of IxD that would be thrown at him. With the term
IxD only/less than 7-10 years old - does that mean there are no greats
of IxD yet - since it will take another 20 years for it to sink in?
~ will
"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.1281 | w...@semanticfoundry.com
http://blog.semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: semanticwill
twitter: semanticwill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb 18, 2009, at 10:40 AM, dave malouf wrote:
I agree with you Chris and Dan, whole-heartily.
I was trying to bring structure and purpose to the exercise, b/c it
seemed to me that almost anyone from Dyson to Ford who thought about
any aspect of human needs and motivations in their designs (of
success) could be put in this category of IxD Greats and in my mind
that means it looses value to me.
Let me explain a bit more. I can look at what Ford did in terms of
designing cars as amazing (not the most beautiful, but from an IxD
perspective revolutionary). It may inspire me in my own design. I can
do the same with Edison, Bell, Marconi, Fulton, etc. I can even be
inspired by the humaness of Wright and the abstraction of Gehry.
Their genius is totally impressive, and all of them have affected the
world I design in as an interaction designer, but I don't think in
all integrity I can really add them to an Interaction Design Hall of
Fame like the one being posited.
The list itself becomes so huge that it starts to loose bounding and
meaning b/c we start saying, well if so&so is in, then why not this
person? and so on and so on.
Galileo is on the genius chain that leads to the atomic bomb, but I
wouldn't call him an atomic physicist. I really think it a stretch
to consider Edison an interaction designer in the same regard, or if
Edison is, so is DaVinci and so is the guy who invented controlled
fire, and the wheel, too. you've just made the term interaction
designer, totally meaningless.
-- dave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38833
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
