Hi folks, Thanks for the great feedback on my UX sundial model! I have adjusted the components. And with Jack Moffett's encouragement I also have added a zoomed-in view of an IxD sundial of skills.... (For the record, I am a very busy person with lots of design work on my plate, but I feel compelled to advance this conversation because I think it's healthy & necessary!)
Please see: http://ebacon.posterous.com/the-ux-sundial-model-iterated-now-including-a-0 Bring on the critique! :) The IxD sundial makes an attempt to describe the essential activities of interaction design practice. Or maybe better: bring on your competing diagrams, or your diagrams of sister disciplines like IA. I think that not every IxD practitioner has to embody all of the depicted skills, but that practitioners who don't have them all probably have deep skills in one sector of the circle--either Understanding, Definition or Communication. And, if you aren't using scenarios somewhere in your process, I would contend you are not doing IxD at all. @angel: check out the activities listed around the IxD sundial and let me know what you think. @jimwich: thank you for clarifying that I am not attempting to define an all-encompassing view of the UX field as "containing" those various other fields. Rather, indeed, the disciplines of UX revolve around a shared axis. You once suggested that we need to define a topology of UX & IxD, and I encourage you to develop it as a visual (unless the Timeline project also meets that goal). I certainly found myself wishing I had additional dimensions to play with in this sundial model. @Andrei asked: what's "the point of having a field of practice called "UX" since it's basically everything?" The answer is -- it only appears to be "everything" inside of our rarefied world! To our collaborators in enterprise, consulting, education, and other spheres of life, we're a unique & discrete conglomeration of skilled professionals. The UX rubric adds value to everybody by elevating a set of highly-related disciplines that share the same end goal of great product/service/space/thingamabob development -- nay, great human experience! The nit-picking arguments we get up to on the IxDA Discussion list are definitely frustrating for many in our community, but imagine the utter lack of comprehension for our discipline that exists outside the UX fields. We have far more in common than we do in difference. I think there is strength and power in numbers, and that this coming-together does not pose some threat to the unique qualities of the discipline of interaction design, or the discipline of information architecture. Remember, oh highly passionate & experienced members of IxDA who tend to dominate the online discussions, many people are: a) just entering the field and trying to grow their skills; b) needing more clarity from recruiters & companies engaged in the hiring process; and/or c) operating in environments that don't understand what we do and desirous of better explanations. Cheers, Liz Vice-President, IxDA / www.ixda.org CDO, Devise / www.devise.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40789 ________________________________________________________________ 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
