Very nice. Well done!
For the US, these classes would probably need a little more
research/theory focus, and also to add the studio section as Dave
suggests, to be competitive with other Master's programs. But, it
could stand on its own as a separate option, depending on what the
students prefer
esta leagao!
I love it! The only thing I would add/modify is that some of your
classes be situated as a design studio. From my perspective in our
lovely RICH United States, this curriculum would be very well
received. It is theoretical and practical.
I think the one part you are missing is ar
I´m absolutely sure there is no possibility of agreeing on an
universal curriculum for Interaction Design because each location has
it´s particular market needs and cultural characteristics.
We can better direction this discussion by focusing on situated examples.
In Brazil, for example, we have
Hi Dave,
Martin, are you "self taught" and want to catch up?
>
I'm just starting out, transitioning from technical writing to IxD. (And
what I'm learning about interaction design and design in general is
self-taught thus far.) I just want to make sure that I'm not missing
anything important :)
I
Oh! I had to find an industrial design studio to work in. (sorry,
forgot that part). -- dave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515
W
Martin, are you "self taught" and want to catch up? or are you the
type of person who only learns on their own? (I looked this up @
m-w.com b/c I never saw the term before. Nice!)
I think one of the main principles I see in this thread is that you
can't Self Teach design. Yes, you can learn theory
Jonas Lowgren has a great resource up at
http://webzone.k3.mah.se/k3jolo/idBookshelf/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515
Welcome
Dan Saffer wrote:
> As a thought experiment, here are my dream courses for undergrad and grad
> (Master's):
>
Given the curriculum that Dan proposed (and taking into account the
additions suggested by others in this thread), what is an autodidact to do?
Anyone care to make some suggestions for a
To Andrei YES!!
I would just add a specific class on intro Anthro and another for
applied anthro besides what Dan calls "Design research".
And I'm good to go. ;-)
Personally I would also require all undergrads to at least pass the
AP in a foreign language or have 2 semesters of foreign l
On Jun 24, 2008, at 6:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was countering you perspective of my POV
as becoming more online with your own by stating that just b/c the
course of study requires adjacent material doesn't mean that the
discipline itself doesn't at it core have a distinctiveness of its
maybe we are passing in the night here...
I thought you were saying that b/c Dan & I were including courses
like type or graphic design theory, that that meant IxD is a holistic
design discipline like the way you seem to use "Interface design".
Assuming I got that right. I was countering you persp
On Jun 24, 2008, at 3:28 AM, dave malouf wrote:
Hold on Andrei, Just b/c I need to learn Type to be a good IxD,
doesn't mean Type is part of IxD.
That makes no sense. Really.
--
Andrei Herasimchuk
Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
c. +1 408 306
Jeremy Yuille asked:
> How many of us have taken a course/class or program/degree
> that had interaction design in the name? Or even close?
>
> can you actually *teach* interaction design?
The School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University has been teaching
Interaction Design since the mid-n
On 6/23/08, Dan Saffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Fred Beecher wrote:
>>
>> Overall, I like your modifications... But I might leave "Interface
>>> Design"
>>> in there.
>>>
>>
>> Ok... this is probabl
Chris, I think your argument is problematic and gives way too much
deconstruction to an area with a very precise history. Serge & Larry
designed the first Google search themselves, for themselves from
engineering to the UI. It hasn't changed since. Any deconstruction
that leads to a UCD process inv
Hold on Andrei, Just b/c I need to learn Type to be a good IxD,
doesn't mean Type is part of IxD. As an anthro major, I had to take
stats, linguistics and psyche but no one would argue that Anthro is
an umbrella for all of those courses. Heck, no one would even argue
that under anthro there aren't
one thing I'd be *very* interested in knowing is:
How many of us have taken a course/class or program/degree that had
interaction design in the name? Or even close..?
reason I ask is that I think it's a really interesting time for IxD,
(I assume) most of our respected members of the community stu
woah - great thread. wish i'd read it sooner.
here's my 2cents on ideas about IxD.edu:
We can make a tick list of all the functions we'd like an IxD'er to
have.. but in the end there's something that's learnt by 'doing',
knowledge built out of and around practice... Just about everyone
here has t
On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Christine Boese wrote:
I understand the need to move beyond UCD, but I'm actually headed in
the direction of LESS of a focus on an atomized individual "user"
and more on the social aspects of design. And you can't do social
design in a vacuum, the lonely artist
Oh yes, agreed, Dave. However, if the methods are not sufficient to take a
large enough step, a radical enough shift of perspective, if they just make
incremental changes, half measures, kinda sorta maybes, something has to
come along and be daring enough to shift fully into the users' POV. If
pers
On Jun 23, 2008, at 6:02 PM, dave malouf wrote:
Ok, on to Andrei, "interface" vs. "interaction". I can see how
easy these terms can be interchangeable as well as hierarchical. But
we have to make a decision and it seems that while you have been
using interface for quite some time the rest of the
Chrstine,
UCD is a collection of methods, not the act of "thinking of users".
So your saying that Google is into UCD I don't find helpful. Heck,
Apple does UCD from that perspective, and so does Walmart. The point
people were making was around the use of the classic IBM class of UCD
practice skills
On Jun 23, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Dan Saffer wrote:
the visual look (icons, color, type, composition of any screen
elements), along with higher level metaphors and organizing
principles about the interface on the whole.
This is as important to understand as programming, even if the
interact
On Jun 23, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
On Jun 23, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Fred Beecher wrote:
Overall, I like your modifications... But I might leave "Interface
Design"
in there.
Ok... this is probably a semantic problem. What do you, and Dan,
mean by "interface design" the
On Jun 23, 2008, at 6:02 PM, dave malouf wrote:
Ok, on to Andrei, "interface" vs. "interaction". I can see how
easy these terms can be interchangeable as well as hierarchical. But
we have to make a decision and it seems that while you have been
using interface for quite some time the rest of th
If paring down a page to a single form field, and peeling away all the
clutter that was part and parcel of "search portals" at the time, was a
radical act, a defiant act, on behalf of users. If it was not THE PRIMO
example of UCD, I don't know what is.
Yes, Google's back end and guts were the valu
Wow I disappear into client meetings for a day and this is what I
find. Yummy
First I want to thank Chris and Uday for their wonderful
contributions at such a high level of intellectual discourse. That
isn't to say other people aren't saying smart things, but in the
spirit of pro-intellect
On Jun 23, 2008, at 3:39 PM, James A. Landay wrote:
I take issue with Dan using Jared's abstract in the way he did.
First, the abstract for such a conference keynote is often meant to
be controversial so as to attract an audience. Jared knows this
quite well as he also uses it to attract
On Jun 23, 2008, at 3:39 PM, James A. Landay wrote:
It seems odd (and in fact dishonest) to me that you cut that part
out. He is asking questions here, not making a statement that it is
true. And the fact is that there are UCD practices at Google, on the
iPod team, etc. (I don't know much
ers into superstars and use that in their marketing.
James /
/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 57
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:46:11 -0700
From: Dan Saffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] IxDA Curriculum (Was: Importance of
Masters Degree for IxD Professionals)
I&#x
I really like Jeff's suggestions for courses.
I went the University of Cincinnati (CCM) and had many friends in the
"design" college. Their degree programs are almost all 5 years and
are not hard sells to incoming students because those students have
been in art classes for most of their high scho
On Jun 23, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Fred Beecher wrote:
Overall, I like your modifications... But I might leave "Interface
Design"
in there.
Ok... this is probably a semantic problem. What do you, and Dan, mean
by "interface design" then? Do you mean taking all that theory and
translating it
Dan's got a good list going here. I'd iterate on it as follows. Basically I
think that design studio needs to exist for most of the time as it takes time,
effort and practice to develop a design process. Also some focus on design
communication - tools, practices, presentation skills etc., and a
Hi Everyone:
I find myself deeply troubled by the trend to dismiss UCD as irrelevant or
(worse) harmful and to suggest that design is a wholly new field.
Of course every field must advance in its thinking and its practices. But
there is a risk of design, divorced from usability, becoming effete a
On 6/23/08, Andrei Herasimchuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Year 3:
> Design Research
> Digital Prototyping
> ***Physical Computing (This might be too early here, depending on
> technology, so it would need to scale with the times)
> Design Theory
> ***(Removed Interface Design: No need to conf
Bullseye!
Chris
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Will Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> I'd just want to note that Google, Facebook, and Twitter above, do
>> practice
>> something I would call Interactive Design (which is not necessarily HCD),
>> in
>> that the SOCIAL element is the c
>
> >
> I'd just want to note that Google, Facebook, and Twitter above, do practice
> something I would call Interactive Design (which is not necessarily HCD),
> in
> that the SOCIAL element is the center. This is what I call out as the most
> essential nature of true interactivity, not just branch
Ethnography and anthropology should be covered in a methods or
research class (and threaded through every other design studios
prototype exercise as well).
Conversations - or dialog would surely be a part of the design theory class.
Mark
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Will Evans <[EMAIL PROTE
Sorry with another quick hit, without answering all of Dan's questions, but
just a quick reply to one piece of what he raised, below:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Dan Saffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Christine Boese wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'd say the last thing w
To the extent that you all would agree that interaction design has
everything to do with the design of conversations, the design of the
mediation as well as the mechanism for the dialogue - building upon
Borgmann's reexamination of Heideggar in "Technology and the Character of
Contemporary Life" an
On Jun 23, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Dan Saffer wrote:
I'd say the last thing we'd want to do is put the Artist/Designer
back into her high-tower, preparing wondrous creations to unleash
upon a grateful and waiting one-to-many monologic world.
Why is this not a valid means of design? I'll let And
Don't have time to reply at length right now (and you know my real name is
Chris Verbose), but if this will help clarify a position I intend to
strongly defend:
I was referring to Old School Design vs Interactive Design, and defining
that difference PRIMARILY in terms of MONOLOGIC Design vs DIALOG
On Jun 23, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Christine Boese wrote:
I dunno. I'd never say Design Theory has nothing to do with
ethnography or
usability. To me, that kind of one-way design thinking approach is
what got
the design field into the blind alley it currently is stuck in,
helpless to
adapt to pr
On Jun 23, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Christine Boese wrote:
I dunno. I'd never say Design Theory has nothing to do with
ethnography or usability.
What then do you think design theory is? If we're going to talk about
what something is or isn't, please start by defining what you think it
is. "Not
On Jun 22, 2008, at 4:41 PM, dave malouf wrote:
In talking to an educator recently, they confessed that with all the
"new" stuff out there they have no idea how to teach anyone all
they need to know in any reasonable time frame at all.
It'll most likely be like this until technology settles d
I dunno. I'd never say Design Theory has nothing to do with ethnography or
usability. To me, that kind of one-way design thinking approach is what got
the design field into the blind alley it currently is stuck in, helpless to
adapt to precisely what INTERACTIVE design means.
That blind alley is t
On Jun 23, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Mabel Ney wrote:
I would like to see the Design Theory include an exposure to
ethnographic research, 1:1 usability evaluations and how people use
screen readers. I see it as something like a hands-on lab for a
science course and a way to help students find their pas
I would like to see the Design Theory include an exposure to
ethnographic research, 1:1 usability evaluations and how people use
screen readers. I see it as something like a hands-on lab for a
science course and a way to help students find their passion.
Also I feel the writing course should be fo
On Jun 22, 2008, at 7:46 PM, Jeff Howard wrote:
I remember a few snippits of conversations while I was at Carnegie
Mellon about why there wasn't a bachelors degree in interaction
design. Some of it might be a question of maturity (both the
discipline and the students). If you could build such a p
This direction makes sense to me. It would ensure that new IxD's have
a T-shaped background, and would also defer medium agnosticism until
the students are presumably mature enough to fully immerse themselves
in it.
(Having come to the field via the 2 degree route, though, I may be
somewhat biased
On the subject of "Why" vs. "What" I think that that is a
question, if not the question, that separates a good designer from a
great one, and separates decoration from design.
I've met a number of junior UXDs (and I should admit that I've done
this myself) who had at some point looked at their job
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Will Evans wrote:
>
> Many know whatto do - they don't know why they do it
>>
>
> Very true. I'm much more of a why than a what. Asking why got me into a lot
> of trouble when I was young
On Jun 23, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Will Evans wrote:
Many know whatto do - they don't know why they do it
Very true. I'm much more of a why than a what. Asking why got me into
a lot of trouble when I was younger. That's still my favorite question.
Cheers!
Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Re
There is also *Service Design* (shout out to Mssr. Howard).
Here is JH's list of research in SD
http://www.howardesign.com/exp/service/
- W
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Donna M. Fritzsche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I was thinking about the qualities of good Interaction Designers (and al
I was thinking about the qualities of good Interaction Designers (and also
comparing and contrasting the profession to that of IA, Graphic Designer,
etc.) It hit me that what was missing from this list - is time-based arts:
music, dance, etc. Then I thought of Tai Chi and American Sign Language.
"We are thinkers, but we get paid to do."
This is absolutely true - but - and it might only be my perspective - is
that many IxD folks do - a lot - all day long. Many know *what* to do - they
don't know *why* they do it. That is the critical piece that the theory does
provide. Studio, Crit - all v
On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:52 PM, Steve Baty wrote:
Your course outline seems to me to provide for the latter pretty
well, whilst allowing for the former if someone sees their niche and
quits after 2 or 3 years to pursue it.
The most important thing for an IxD is to actually start doing IxD.
Dan,
I think it's important to distinguish between a generation practitioners
from other fields who, through experience, are capable of doing
*some*(niche - broader or narrower) IxD work really well; and
preparing a
generation of graduates with the grounding they need to approach *any* IxD
task wi
Dave wrote:
> the medium agnostic philosophy of IxD makes it very
> difficult to market to the younger crowd. The "thing"
> is well the thing, so having concentrations in IxD
> for interactive, for software product, for industrial
> design, for architecture (etc.) might be a better
> tact
T
On Jun 22, 2008, at 6:47 PM, kim Lenox wrote:
5 year BFA programs are not uncommon. My BFA was a 5yr program, but it
took me 6 yrs because it was a California State University. CSU's
never have enough general ed classes available, so it took that long
just to get IN to some classes. But the ben
Pharmacy is a 6 year program now as well.
On Jun 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, dave malouf wrote:
dmitry, a common degree in the US is the 6yr. med program.
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ...
5 year BFA programs are not uncommon. My BFA was a 5yr program, but it
took me 6 yrs because it was a California State University. CSU's
never have enough general ed classes available, so it took that long
just to get IN to some classes. But the benefit was I had 6 full
years of art, design and the
Ah! so we have a big marketing campaign ahead of us. Fortunately, Fast
Company already started this out for us calling IxD one of the top 10
jobs you didn't know you wanted to have. ;-)
I've been thinking about this from a different tact.
Maybe "major" doesn't make sense for IxD at the undergrad
Dave, you're absolutely correct regarding the 6 year med school
programs (as well as e.g. combined bachelors/MBA programs). Same for
the architecture programs as mentioned by Christine. A motivated high
school senior will have no problem making that commitment.
The difference is the perceived valu
Dimitry wrote:
> Is that a realistic premise? I doubt it. It ignores
> the reality of a fast evolving field in which the best
> work is done by teams of T-shaped specialists
You can also look at T-shaped people as generalists.
I think the curriculum we're talking about would result in T-shape
There are also quite a lot of 5-year Architecture programs. Generally, with
these, and somee 4-year programs, you have to complete one year of school
outside the program, gen eds, overview courses, and then apply your
sophomore year for "admission" into the program. Those without the grades
from th
Oh, another point to share. ...
In talking to an educator recently, they confessed that with all the
"new" stuff out there they have no idea how to teach anyone all
they need to know in any reasonable time frame at all.
-- dave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P
dmitry, a common degree in the US is the 6yr. med program. Many
students enter undergrad "knowing" they want to be doctors. Why not
IxD's? If I can get an MD in 6 yrs (including summers I think), why
not a Masters of IxD in 5 years including some intensive work (or
required internships) during summ
While reading this thread, I couldn't help but notice a pervasive
assumption: The ideal educational background for an interaction
designer is a single degree (whether graduate or undergraduate) that
touches upon every aspect of the profession and related fields.
Is that a realistic premise? I doub
I absolutely agree with Mark. To do any less would be teaching
interface design with a trade school mentality. You could do it, but
for _interaction design_ survey courses in history, literature, art,
philosophy, political science, anthropology, sociology, psychology
and ethics should be considered
Which is why I do not think you can properly prepare an interaction
designer within the constructs of a bachelors degree. Given what Dan
outlines as a curriculum, and what Jeff has added (which I totally
agree with) it IS a lot. Also factor in that this excludes the well
rounded liberal art
The undergraduate aspect of this is the toughest.
My degree was a BFA in graphic design (which I think is easier to
grasp) but we didn't even _start_ the actual design classes until
the 2nd year. The first year was focused on foundation courses in
drawing and basic two- and three-dimensional form
Great thought experiment. Some things that came to mind when I read the list:
1. There is a jump between sketching and digital prototyping. I
think that there should be a survey course on the entire range of
prototyping methods to provide a suite of tools for interaction
designers. The course
Ooh, I love this one!
Philosophy of Interaction Design from Heidegger to Benjamin to Bahktin
You know what I think is needed for an elective, from a cultural studies
perspective?
History and Online Cultures in Networked Computer Systems from DARPA to
Present
(still hitting the early theorists,
Amen! This is what I hoped for when I said we could and should advise on we
think would be good for the profession.
A couple of additions to the Dan's Grad Program:
Electives:
Introduction to Marketing and Branding
Philosophy of Interaction Design from Heidegger to Benjamin to Bahktin
Introducti
On Jun 22, 2008, at 8:03 AM, Adam Connor wrote:
What do you see included in in the Undergrad, Year 2 - Information
Design and Visualization course?
Visualizing data sets. Grid systems. Color theory. Illustrations,
graphs, and charts.
The reason I ask is that in looking through your list
Dan,
What do you see included in in the Undergrad, Year 2 - Information
Design and Visualization course?
The reason I ask is that in looking through your list I was looking
for something introductory on design patterns/principals (something
along the lines of the "Universal Principals of Design" b
On Jun 22, 2008, at 5:54 AM, Adam Connor wrote:
I think it would be great if IxDA came up with a proposed curriculum
that could be used by schools to build new offerings in the IxD field.
As a thought experiment, here are my dream courses for undergrad and
grad (Master's):
UNDERGRADUATE
78 matches
Mail list logo
