Richard, no worries. Sorry to jump on the defining. I understand the desire for identifying a "common ground", and while UX maybe the generally accepted & common label to roll all those ideas into one neat label, I just fear it's too slick, too marketing/corporate/managerial as Kolko says, and thus glazing over the intricacy of some very rich, profound issues of "interaction" and "information", etc. BTW, I totally admit using "UX" in my daily speak with ordinary folks, or with clients since it pays the bills and it's easy :-)
But as design professionals amongst ourselves we should strive a bit more, with real discourse into the theories, strategies, methods, philosophies to establish a meaningful foundation, and UX just isn't enough for that endeavor IMHO. So then, what's our common ground? Malcolm references "digital ground" which is useful. I created this diagram which may offer some further clues, from rhetorical communication theory: http://tinyurl.com/cf9cxu. Andrei and I used this for our design class last year at SJSU. The main point is the constituent elements of presentation / structure / behavior across various perspectives, their common interdependency towards supporting dialogues between people and products... (PS-- we really should get Dick Buchanan to speak at the next IxD conference :-) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40553 ________________________________________________________________ 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
