I really don't see the point to all this for us in this community. A timeline of the greatest "interactive" inventions of all time seems really pointless as a means of expressing the history of the discipline of "interaction design".
Despite Christian's snide comment, what I was referring to was less about "design" but about using methods, applying known theories, and understandings for achieving great IxD, as opposed to well, "genius". One might say by acknowledging these earily genius' we are saying that everything we believe in as a discipline and a practice is well meaningless. On the other hand lauding these accomplishments in such a way that outlines what makes them great interaction designs. What part of their aesthetics? their use of time? the quality motions? their use of affordances? etc. etc. And most importantly how did they impact behavior? It might even be worthwhile to create a set of criteria that makes something a great interaction design as opposed to us just randomly using our gut to express these notions. Again, though I'm not so sure that saying "great invention" is the same as "great interaction design". - 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
