Discussion Archive: November 2003

21 Nov 2003 - 9:46am
0
Robert Reimann
2003

IxD & ID (was RE: Patriarchs of the Design Famil y)

Beth Mazur wrote:

> Is it that industrial designers focus on form over function? Or is it
> that in their world, the complexity of the associated human behaviors
> is far more simple. Or if it isn't simple, say like for an automobile,
> there are established conventions and/or patterns that designers use
> rather than spending lots of time on designing for them.

These are very good points.

20 Nov 2003 - 9:33pm
0
11 years ago
10 replies
Beth Mazur
2003

Form, Meaning, and Behavior

At 5:52 PM -0500 11/20/03, Reimann, Robert wrote:
>Behavior, like
>form, has both a cognitive and an emotive component whose
>meanings must be interpreted by those who experience it, and
>the nuances of which are ignored at some peril.

Agreed. For me the interesting question is the one Coryndon asked...do
we really understand form in the digital realm? Are we saying that
form in the digital realm is the role of interface and/or visual designers?
Or maybe there's much more to it?

Beth Mazur
IDblog: http://idblog.org

20 Nov 2003 - 4:52pm
0
Robert Reimann
2003

Form, Meaning, and Behavior (RE: Patri archs of the Design Family)

Terrific points, Kristoffer (and I agree that for
design of interactive devices, ID and IxD must work
hand-in-hand).

Meaning does, I think, have a close relationship
to behavior, because meanings of actions as well
as meanings of presented information/objects must be
interpreted by users. Research by Clifford Nass and
Byron Reeves chronicled in _The Media Equation_
suggests that people may naturally (but subconsciously)
interpret the actions of interactive systems in
anthropomorphic terms-- in other words, as if they
were performed by human-like intelligences.

20 Nov 2003 - 2:35pm
0
Dave Malouf
2005

ADMIN: Reminder to trim postings

I know I am a committer of this foul, but I have been reminded that it is
proper ettiquette to try to trim your postings when you reply to use only
those aspects of the previous posts that you are directly responding to.

This has a huge benefit for those ...
1. using the digest version
2. working on slower machines
3. working on mobile devices
(I have felt this one in particular on my palm-based phone)
4. others I forgot to mention

But please! do not take this in any way to mean ... please be quiet.
the discussion has been great and amazingly informative. I love it!

-- dave

ps.

20 Nov 2003 - 1:49pm
0
11 years ago
2 replies
Dave Malouf
2005

IxD & ID (was RE: Patriarchs of the Design Family)

Kristoffer, I totally agree that this is a great discussion.

So are we in agreement then that there are two distinct disciplines? That
these disciplines have areas where they are completely tied together and
completely separate from each other?
Tied together: mobile computing, medical devices, et.

20 Nov 2003 - 12:25pm
0
Robert Reimann
2003

FW: Patriarchs of the Design Family

I'm sorry if I've led anyone to believe that I think
industrial design is "unconcerned with interaction".
What I was trying to say (thanks Dave H.) is that interaction
design (as I would characterize it) is concerned FIRST with
behavior, and then with form (as it applies to behavior).
Although industrial design must concern itself with behavior,
its focus, I would argue, is in most cases primarily form.

I was also not trying to imply that form is unimportant to IntD,
or should be entirely ceded to other disciplines.

20 Nov 2003 - 12:11pm
0
Anirudha Joshi
2003

Patriarchs of the Design Family (was: New UberDesign Org)

Those who are interested in Icograda and its relation to interaction
design, please check out the daily reports from the recent Icograda
congress in Japan last month:
http://www.visualogue.com/dailynews/1009/clarity_e.html
http://www.visualogue.com/dailynews/1010/special_e.html
http://www.visualogue.com/dailynews/1010/clarity_e.html

20 Nov 2003 - 9:32am
0
11 years ago
18 replies
Robert Reimann
2003

Patriarchs of the Design Family

Molly Steenson (hi Molly!) wrote:

> Bill Moggridge at last weeks' Ivrea symposium indicated that interaction
design is a sort of digital > industrial design (to Beth Mazur's earlier
point). Those who come from technology tend to look at
> it differently: as a series of interfaces and interactions with screens
and layers of information.

Calling interaction design "digital industrial design" might be a useful
metaphor
to help traditional designers feel more comfortable with it, but like most
metaphors,
it has significant limits.

20 Nov 2003 - 8:54am
0
Challis Hodge
2003

DIS2004 -- Deadline update

=========================================================

DESIGNING INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS - DIS2004

Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1-4 August 2004

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear Colleague,

Submission of Full Papers and Design Cases to DIS2004 is now open. The

deadline for submissions is 10 December 2003.

DIS2004 will take place in Cambridge MA from 1st - 4th August 2004. It will

provide a rich forum for discussing interactive systems design theory, new

design methodologies and for reflecting on design practice.

20 Nov 2003 - 2:17am
0
CD Evans
2004

Patriarchs of the Design Family (was: New Uber Design Org)

To further on Molly's note, it seems quite a bit of design comes from
research as well.

One could say design is the result of any realized knowledge.

CD Evans

At 4:29 pm +0100 19/11/03, molly w. steenson wrote:
>It's interesting to note that in Italy, industrial and product
>design sprang from architecture. (Until recently, it wasn't possible
>to study these things separately from them.) I also have heard but
>can't verify that Italy graduates 10,000 architecture students each
>year.