The Umbrella, Heller's comments on "A rose by any other name"

20 Apr 2004 - 2:08pm
10 years ago
18 replies
818 reads
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

Of all of the comments on B&A recently, I found this one to be spot on:

"To me what is missing is not a definition of IA. I'll stick w/ the one
that AIfIA put forth on their web site, but what is really missing is
what is the umbrella. There is no one working there. No one is working
to create a viable unconfusing umbrella for all of us. We are so stuck
in defining the particulars what we forgot is the first rule of
taxonomy (what's his name Lineus?) that you need to know your parents
before you build your children, right? How do I know that a horse and
cow are related to each other if I don't even know what grouping they
might share?

If you look at the conference agendas for IA Summit, UPA, CHI, and STC
you see a lot of overlap, but the overlap is not contextualized, so it
appears that all 4 are trying to take their respective name now mean
the overlap. This to me is wrong. It dilutes the meantion and strength
of the particulars and thus we loose the value of the multi-facets that
Lynn so correctly wants to preserve. Experience Design at CHI looses
"design". Interaction Design at UPA becomes an attemtp to make design
less subjective and more validative and quantifiable. Even if
unintended, this is the outcome.

This is the real damaging piece. If in defining the particular we
subsume the whole we are missing the point and we are hurting our
peers' abilities to differentiate and show value and (as you suggest)
bring their particular backgrounds and contexts to bear on the whole.

I would like to take this opportunity to call on all the groups no
matter how old or young they are, or how many members they may or may
not have and come together to define the umbrella. Maybe even have our
separate organizations become partners in a new umbrella organization.
What that new umbrella is, I don't know -- User Experience (some hate
the word user) ... but there is an umbrella out there, eh?"

http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/
information_architecture_a_rose_by_any_other_name.php?
page=discuss#10240

The next ten years are going to be fairly critical for the design
community. We have the opportunity at this juncture to take a true
leadership role in the corporate world, in the business itself, to the
same degree Graphic Designers and Automotive Designers became critical
business units in corporations through the 1940s and 1960s.

I for one would like to see David's question answered. I have taken my
own stab at the "umbrella" term many times now, both on my web site and
in mailing lists such as these. Too often I see folks throw their hands
up in the air as if to avoid the issue, or worse, think it is not all
that relevant. In the business context, it's entirely relevant, and
more important than I think most want to acknowledge.

Andrei Herasimchuk
andrei at adobe.com

work: http://www.adobe.com
personal: http://www.designbyfire.com

Comments

21 Apr 2004 - 12:57pm
kjnarey
2004

Andrei,

I see this as a little bit of a political chicken and egg scenario and is
paralleled throughout business practice the world over. I see the question
as being; Is it more important to be known semantically correctly or should
we be known through reputation of the end product that we provide? I believe
there is capital in both sides, but tend toward the reputation slant.

I was under the impression that the 'umbrella' was decided collectively as
'interaction design' - hence the gloriously cosmopolitan and diverse brood
we communicate with on this list. I read with interest Nico MacDonald's (UK
Design Council) description of Interaction Design and with perhaps a couple
of minor issues, feel totally at home with it. Other descriptions from other
international bodies are not too dissimilar from that.

I see the challenge not in the semantics of what we are known by, as the
'umbrella' we have currently is sufficient enough to move forward
effectively, but discovering ways as a collective to turn our practical and
theoretical ideas into a workable business proposition and as a result of
that enhance peoples lives through that collective effort. The results of
this hard work will help to define how we are known i.e. build on
reputation.

Kind regards

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.com]On Behalf Of Andrei Herasimchuk
Sent: 20 April 2004 21:09
To: Interaction Discussion
Subject: [ID Discuss] The Umbrella,Heller's comments on "A rose by any
other name"

Of all of the comments on B&A recently, I found this one to be spot on:

"To me what is missing is not a definition of IA. I'll stick w/ the one
that AIfIA put forth on their web site, but what is really missing is
what is the umbrella. There is no one working there. No one is working
to create a viable unconfusing umbrella for all of us. We are so stuck
in defining the particulars what we forgot is the first rule of
taxonomy (what's his name Lineus?) that you need to know your parents
before you build your children, right? How do I know that a horse and
cow are related to each other if I don't even know what grouping they
might share?

If you look at the conference agendas for IA Summit, UPA, CHI, and STC
you see a lot of overlap, but the overlap is not contextualized, so it
appears that all 4 are trying to take their respective name now mean
the overlap. This to me is wrong. It dilutes the meantion and strength
of the particulars and thus we loose the value of the multi-facets that
Lynn so correctly wants to preserve. Experience Design at CHI looses
"design". Interaction Design at UPA becomes an attemtp to make design
less subjective and more validative and quantifiable. Even if
unintended, this is the outcome.

This is the real damaging piece. If in defining the particular we
subsume the whole we are missing the point and we are hurting our
peers' abilities to differentiate and show value and (as you suggest)
bring their particular backgrounds and contexts to bear on the whole.

I would like to take this opportunity to call on all the groups no
matter how old or young they are, or how many members they may or may
not have and come together to define the umbrella. Maybe even have our
separate organizations become partners in a new umbrella organization.
What that new umbrella is, I don't know -- User Experience (some hate
the word user) ... but there is an umbrella out there, eh?"

http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/
information_architecture_a_rose_by_any_other_name.php?
page=discuss#10240

The next ten years are going to be fairly critical for the design
community. We have the opportunity at this juncture to take a true
leadership role in the corporate world, in the business itself, to the
same degree Graphic Designers and Automotive Designers became critical
business units in corporations through the 1940s and 1960s.

I for one would like to see David's question answered. I have taken my
own stab at the "umbrella" term many times now, both on my web site and
in mailing lists such as these. Too often I see folks throw their hands
up in the air as if to avoid the issue, or worse, think it is not all
that relevant. In the business context, it's entirely relevant, and
more important than I think most want to acknowledge.

Andrei Herasimchuk
andrei at adobe.com

work: http://www.adobe.com
personal: http://www.designbyfire.com

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

21 Apr 2004 - 1:09pm
Dave Malouf
2005

To me the problem is much more simple.
I get a call from a recruiter looking for a UI Designer.
My resume is spotted w/ titles like User Experience Architect, Interactive
Producer, Ui Designer, Information Architect.
The recruiter sees these all as separate jobs and thus doesn't do the
addition that I have actually 10 years experience and dismisses my resume.
YES! Recruiters need to be better, but I think it just explains that this is
not just about semantics, but about communication clarity.

Also, I disagree w/ Kevin that we are saying on this list that IxD is the
umbrella. In fact it is just the opposite. We are not trying to say that IA,
ID, Usability, etc. are all interaction design. Rather just the opposite, we
are trying to make sure that Usability (as in UPA) doesn't subsume IxD into
their sphere of influence w/o acknowledging the special and unique
discipline of its own.

The issue is pretty big, IMHO and it is not just semantics; it is political
maybe, but it is still real.

-- dave

21 Apr 2004 - 1:55pm
kjnarey
2004

David,

Your recruitment example puts a slightly different light on your original
comments and I agree that this is a problem, although in the big scheme of
things - pretty minor. I have seen jobs titled 'Interaction Designer'
available on IT job sites only last month (advertised with a pretty hefty
salary too - it's an important role to that company). This means that there
is some filtration into the mainstream - a step forward and definitely a
sign of progressivism. Anyway, I have never come across any recruiter who is
focussed solely on the taxonomy of their workforce. All of the Job Titles
you referred to are used by recruiters (and especially agents who don't care
what you're called) for just about the same skillset and only through the
natural passing of time will this change.

So why worry about posturing with other organisations - would it really be a
devaluation of IxD to be subsumed into the UPA? You've said very little to
make me believe that our work is less of a focus than to how we are referred
to in business circles.

Kind regards

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.com]On Behalf Of David Heller
Sent: 21 April 2004 20:09
To: 'Interaction Discussion'
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] The Umbrella,Heller's comments on "A rose by
any other name"

To me the problem is much more simple.
I get a call from a recruiter looking for a UI Designer.
My resume is spotted w/ titles like User Experience Architect, Interactive
Producer, Ui Designer, Information Architect.
The recruiter sees these all as separate jobs and thus doesn't do the
addition that I have actually 10 years experience and dismisses my resume.
YES! Recruiters need to be better, but I think it just explains that this is
not just about semantics, but about communication clarity.

Also, I disagree w/ Kevin that we are saying on this list that IxD is the
umbrella. In fact it is just the opposite. We are not trying to say that IA,
ID, Usability, etc. are all interaction design. Rather just the opposite, we
are trying to make sure that Usability (as in UPA) doesn't subsume IxD into
their sphere of influence w/o acknowledging the special and unique
discipline of its own.

The issue is pretty big, IMHO and it is not just semantics; it is political
maybe, but it is still real.

-- dave

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

21 Apr 2004 - 2:04pm
Dave Malouf
2005

On behalf of Carrie Ritch ...
[Note: send an e-mail to volunteers at interactiondesigners.com to get on the
workgroup list. I was allowing this discussion on this list because there
wasn't a lot of traiffic this week; but Carrie is right, this is not the
right place for this discussion; thank you for the course correction.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Carrie Ritch [mailto:critch at rochester.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 4:12 PM
To: David Heller
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] The Umbrella,Heller's comments on "A rose by any
other name"

I agree with Dave, IxD is one discipline among several related disciplines.
As someone who practices in many of the disciplines, being in a small
company, I would love to be able to sum up all these "hats" with a single
term.

I believe we had previously determined this type of discussion should be
kept to the Workgroup list so if anyone is interested in discussing this
further - sign up! (**Dave can you send out the link/instructions for
subscribing to the Workgroup list - couldn't find it anywhere on the sites.)

couple of references, in no particular order, i've collected regarding the
"umbrella" term and IxD:

1. Challis Hodge's diagram plotting existing organizations along a strategic
vs. tactical continuum and organized by discipline. He highlights the
absence of an all-encompassing strategic organization:
http://www.challishodge.com/images/designorgs.gif

2. Beth Mazur's Left Field Idea:
http://www.idblog.org/archives/000276.html
"I'm far more interested in the effort that will raise the visibility (and
value) of all of these related skills, whether you call them UX, ED, ID, IA,
usability, or whatever."
her recommendations are:

1. Spin off AIGA-ED from AIGA
2. Get related orgs to co-sponsor
3. Rename using a general acronym or name
4. Locate the org at a university
5. Get outside sources of funding
6. Conduct outreach as much, if not more than member service

3. Interview w/Nathan Shedroff:
http://www.informationdesign.org/special/shedroff_interview.htm
"The reason why I think the term Experience Design is useful is because it's
an ever-present reminder of the wider design issues we need to approach.
It's very accurate since we are designing experiences. But, since most
design disciplines or processes take into account broad issues across the
social, cultural, emotional, spatial, and sensorial range, we don't ask
these questions and build solutions to address them. Therefore, you could
spend your time trying to reform each design discipline individually or you
can try to address them all at once with an umbrella. The other nice thing
about this approach is that you can start building connection between
disciplines (and people within them) that might not have otherwise been
made. Simply showing the similarities between fields can help open
designers' minds to new possibilities."

4. Interview w/Clement Mok - Inside "Time for Change":
http://www.nextd.org/02/02/02/index.html
3/4 of the way down clement says they are working on a new umbrella
organization:
"What should we be doing in parallel to make sure we don't become too
insular? We are in the formative stage of creating the American Design
Council- an initiative to bring other professional organization into the
conversation under one-tent and develop an agenda that we can collectively
advance on without any one discipline's biases. Stay tune on this one."

carrie

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.com]On Behalf Of David Heller
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 3:09 PM
To: 'Interaction Discussion'
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] The Umbrella,Heller's comments on "A rose by any
other name"

To me the problem is much more simple.
I get a call from a recruiter looking for a UI Designer.
My resume is spotted w/ titles like User Experience Architect, Interactive
Producer, Ui Designer, Information Architect.
The recruiter sees these all as separate jobs and thus doesn't do the
addition that I have actually 10 years experience and dismisses my resume.
YES! Recruiters need to be better, but I think it just explains that this is
not just about semantics, but about communication clarity.

Also, I disagree w/ Kevin that we are saying on this list that IxD is the
umbrella. In fact it is just the opposite. We are not trying to say that IA,
ID, Usability, etc. are all interaction design. Rather just the opposite, we
are trying to make sure that Usability (as in UPA) doesn't subsume IxD into
their sphere of influence w/o acknowledging the special and unique
discipline of its own.

The issue is pretty big, IMHO and it is not just semantics; it is political
maybe, but it is still real.

-- dave

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

21 Apr 2004 - 2:06pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Apr 21, 2004, at 12:55 PM, kjnarey wrote:

> Anyway, I have never come across any recruiter who is
> focussed solely on the taxonomy of their workforce. All of the Job
> Titles
> you referred to are used by recruiters (and especially agents who
> don't care
> what you're called) for just about the same skillset and only through
> the
> natural passing of time will this change.

I have. In fact, given the nature of these tech jobs starting to filter
into other companies not primarily in the tech field, I think David's
point is even more urgent. Companies like Chase and American Express
are hiring designers for in-house tech and web work. Safeway needs
people for its tech and web services. Johnson and Johnson will need
them. All sorts of companies will need them. The only recruiters I have
seen that are savvy to combine the job titles when looking at resumes
with titles that David has pointed out are recruiters that are in the
tech business.

That is going to change very quickly in the next ten years. And I also
agree with David that unless designers speak up, it will somehow be
consumed by "Usability" as the umbrella. Everyone can read my web site
to get my feelings on that issue. I think that would be the worst thing
possible to happen to the field.

Andrei Herasimchuk
andrei at adobe.com

work: http://www.adobe.com
personal: http://www.designbyfire.com

21 Apr 2004 - 2:36pm
Jim Hoekema
2004

I agree, it is a problem having a half-dozen names for a cluster of
disciplines that are so close -- and often represented by so few people in a
company -- that probably more than half the people who hold any one of these
titles probably also performs most of the other roles, too.

For me "Interaction Design" is almost there, although "Interactive Design"
sounds broader to me ears, and more parallel to Graphic Design or
Instructional Design or Industrial Design.

But if "Usability" is the word that gets us our jobs or gets our work
noticed, maybe we should promote the term "Usability Design" as distinct
from Usabilty Evaluation and Usability Testing. It's a buzzword, but it
conveys just as much about what we do as any other term -- maybe more, since
it focus on the goal of the activity.

- Jim Hoekema
"Usability Designer" (hey, I like it!)
www.hoekema.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Heller
>
> we are trying to make sure that Usability (as in UPA) doesn't
> subsume IxD into
> their sphere of influence w/o acknowledging the special and unique
> discipline of its own.
>
> The issue is pretty big, IMHO and it is not just semantics; it is
> political maybe, but it is still real.
>
> -- dave
>

21 Apr 2004 - 3:50pm
Dave Collins
2004

>For me "Interaction Design" is almost there, although "Interactive
Design"
>sounds broader to me ears, and more parallel to Graphic Design or
>Instructional Design or Industrial Design.

Well... technically, "interactive design" really means "to design
interactively".

What you are trying to say might be more appropriately be termed
"Interactivity Design", which is kind of ugly.

(Strange the other two examples you mention don't seem to suffer the
same grammatical problem.)

But I digress...

21 Apr 2004 - 5:33pm
George Olsen
2004

>>For me "Interaction Design" is almost there, although "Interactive
> Design"
>>sounds broader to me ears, and more parallel to Graphic Design or
>>Instructional Design or Industrial Design.

Much as I hate stepping back into the semantics wars, it's worth pointing
out that the Flash folks have frequently adopted "interactive design" as
the description what they do.

George

21 Apr 2004 - 8:45pm
id at ourbrisba...
2004

Quoting Jim Hoekema <jim at hoekema.com>:
> But if "Usability" is the word that gets us our jobs or gets our work
> noticed, maybe we should promote the term "Usability Design" as distinct
> from Usabilty Evaluation and Usability Testing. It's a buzzword, but it
> conveys just as much about what we do as any other term -- maybe more, since
> it focus on the goal of the activity.

Unfortunately 'usability' for many brings to mind ugly interfaces.
Traditionally usability is linked with HCI and does not take into account affect
or aesthetics.

Personally, usability brings to mind 'discount usability engineering' and the
watered down techniques associated with it.

Whatever happened to "human-centred design" as an 'umbrella' (ref: ISO 13407)?
Isn't that what most of these disciplines strive for?

Best regards,

Ash Donaldson
"It depends."
User Experience Designer

21 Apr 2004 - 10:59pm
Dan Saffer
2003

On Apr 21, 2004, at 10:45 PM, id at ourbrisbane.com wrote:
>
> Whatever happened to "human-centred design" as an 'umbrella' (ref: ISO
> 13407)?
> Isn't that what most of these disciplines strive for?
>

I'm not entirely sure we only design for humans anymore. Seems like
many people are designing systems with humans in them, but other
entities as well, some of which may or may not interact with humans or,
if they do, don't do so on a one-to-one basis.

I'm also starting to think human-centric design is just one approach to
interaction design, but not the only one. It just gets a lot of press
these days. :)

But maybe that's just me...

Dan

Dan Saffer
M.Des. Candidate, Interaction Design
Carnegie Mellon University
http://www.odannyboy.com

22 Apr 2004 - 1:12am
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

I'm actually beginning to think the umbrella term is simply Digital
Product Design. This coming from a person who has admittedly stuck with
Interface Designer for so long.

I dislike "Experience Design" because I think everyone has a unique
experience with products, and I always found it a little lofty to think
one could, or even should, attempt to try and design it for someone
else. Experience design feels too much like entertainment, where you
are being manipulated, instead of in the driver seat as a user.

I dislike using any of the core components of Digital Product Design as
the umbrella, like information architecture, or visual design or
interaction design. Those are focused, specific fields that can have
specialists focusing on that. It seems Interface Design has fallen out
of favor for a variety of reasons, and I guess I'll just have to live
with that, even though I still think the term "interface" is far more
descriptive than much of what people use for titles these days.

The term Digital Product Design covers a lot of ground. I think it
easily encompasses any product that has a digital component -- a Palm
device, TiVo, an embedded app in a refrigerator to do grocery shopping,
a software app like Photoshop, a web based app like Amazon, etc. That
could be web apps, thin clients, RIAs, embedded apps, desktop software,
etc. It's a term I have heard David Heller use before, and I have been
using it more and more in my own description. It's general enough, and
allows rooms for all the disciplines to exist inside of it.

That's my opinion for now.

Andrei Herasimchuk
andrei at adobe.com

work: http://www.adobe.com
personal: http://www.designbyfire.com

22 Apr 2004 - 2:26am
pabini
2004

Dave Collins wrote: Well... technically, "interactive design" really means
"to design
interactively".

You're absolutely right, Dave. If we're going to discuss issues of
semantics, we should at least adhere to proper English usage.

Pabini Gabriel-Petit

22 Apr 2004 - 2:51am
pabini
2004

Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
> I'm actually beginning to think the umbrella term is simply Digital
> Product Design. This coming from a person who has admittedly stuck with
> Interface Designer for so long.

Pabini's response:
"Digital Product Design" could encompass design, or architecture, on the
technical side of software or industrial design, so might be ambiguous.
"Interface design" seems to have taken on the connotation of visual design
for some people.

Andrei wrote:
> I dislike "Experience Design"...

Pabini's response:
For our recent salary survey, Tania Lang and I used "User Experience Design"
as our umbrella term. (I dislike the use of "Experience Design" when not
preceded by "User" myself--for some of the same reasons you mentioned.)
People seemed to accept this term. Just two people who chose "Other"
provided responses that corresponded to User Experience Design. One
specified "User-Centered Design", and there was one respondent who clearly
wished he or she could have chosen more than one primary role, but User
Experience Design was one of those roles.

> I dislike using any of the core components of Digital Product Design as
> the umbrella, like information architecture, or visual design or
> interaction design. Those are focused, specific fields that can have
> specialists focusing on that. It seems Interface Design has fallen out
> of favor for a variety of reasons, and I guess I'll just have to live
> with that, even though I still think the term "interface" is far more
> descriptive than much of what people use for titles these days.

Pabini's response:
I agree with you that these are the core components of what I call "User
Experience Design". Interaction design, information architecture, and visual
interface design were the options that we provided in our survey.

Pabini
________________________________________

Pabini Gabriel-Petit
Principal & User Experience Architect
Spirit Softworks
www.spiritsoftworks.com

22 Apr 2004 - 6:26am
Jim Hoekema
2004

Well, no, Dave is only relatively right, not absolutely.

At face value, "interactive design" seems to mean "to design interactively,"
because we have an adjective attached to a noun, and that would be the
default relationship. But we know that the meaning of language is based on
real usage, and the term "interactive design" fits nicely with many other
examples:

- graphic design
- instructional design
- mechanical engineering
- electrical engineering
- civil litigation (to litigate in a civil manner? not likely!)

Clearly, the adjective in these examples describes the domain in which the
activity takes place, or the area the activity addresses.

So, this term may not be favored by the majority, but it cannot be voted off
of the ballot on purely procedural (grammatical) grounds! (Ooops, the word
litigation suddenly made me feel like I'm in court...)

- Jim Hoekema
www.hoekema.com

> -----Original Message-----

> Dave Collins wrote: Well... technically, "interactive design" really means
> "to design
> interactively".
>
> You're absolutely right, Dave. If we're going to discuss issues of
> semantics, we should at least adhere to proper English usage.
>
> Pabini Gabriel-Petit
>
>

22 Apr 2004 - 6:49am
Dave Collins
2004

>> Whatever happened to "human-centred design" as an 'umbrella' (ref:
ISO
>> 13407)?
>> Isn't that what most of these disciplines strive for?
>>
>
>I'm not entirely sure we only design for humans anymore. Seems like
>many people are designing systems with humans in them, but other
>entities as well, some of which may or may not interact with humans or,

>if they do, don't do so on a one-to-one basis.

If we don't only design for humans, who else do we design for? Other
automated systems and animals are the only examples I can think of. (Or
are you thinking of meta-entities such as groups of people?)

Does usability really apply to automated systems? Seems to me, that's
merely an issue of programming, not usability. Seems to me usability, by
definition, is concerned with the purely analog processes that living
creatures use to interface with man-made systems. To speed up task
completion for programs to interact really just requires more efficient
programming.

As for animals, well... I suppose.

22 Apr 2004 - 7:22am
Beth Mazur
2003

> I'm actually beginning to think the umbrella term is simply Digital
> Product Design. This coming from a person who has admittedly stuck with
> Interface Designer for so long.

Last fall, I wondered if big IxD was essentially digital industrial
design (largely based on the interesting parallels I saw in the
"What is ID?" from IDSA...see http://tinyurl.com/2yacx).

But for me, an *umbrella* term probably won't involve the word
"digital" in it. I realize that for IxD folks, it's largely about
the digital aspects (though I recall that a recent time this
came up on this list, there were those interested in non-digital
interactions).

For me, coming from the tech comm/information design world, part
of the umbrella will include things that either aren't digital by
their nature or will be non-digital in support of digital products.

Beth Mazur
IDblog: http://idblog.org

22 Apr 2004 - 7:25am
Dan Saffer
2003

On Apr 22, 2004, at 3:12 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

> I'm actually beginning to think the umbrella term is simply Digital
> Product Design. This coming from a person who has admittedly stuck
> with Interface Designer for so long.
>

This would be true if we designed only digital products. There's a
number of people who design interactive products that are analog too.
Think environments, medical devices, the SEAMS project, and a bunch of
others. Granted, a lot of interactive design work is digital, but not
all.

Dan

22 Apr 2004 - 7:39am
Dave Malouf
2005

[Note: from moderator ... I'm letting this conversation continue on here,
dispite the guidelines, b/c I have received a small number of requests by
people to make the discussion more philosophical on this list. Please e-mail
me if you disagree with this decision "info at interactiondesigners.com"]

That being said, I think the term digital does make sense:
Designing environments to me is architectural in nature
Medical devices have digital aspects to them, or intelligence.
"Systems" is an interesting question and I would say this is a different
discipline or falls more under "Experience Design".

I think it was Robert Rienman who said that what allows us to design for
behavior is b/c what we are designing has some level of intelligences; the
intelligence is achieved b/c of the use of technology (i.e. a
semiconductor). I believe intelligence is a requirement here in order to
differentiate classical industrial design which includes mechanical and just
plain form design from interaction design which assumes that the product in
question "reacts" with "intelligence" to the user, vs. just fits the user's
purpose and aesthetic appeal.

Again, these are just spaces on a broad continuum and not absolutes.

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Dan Saffer
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:26 AM
To: 'Interaction Discussion'
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] The Umbrella,Heller's comments on "A rose by any
other name"

On Apr 22, 2004, at 3:12 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:

> I'm actually beginning to think the umbrella term is simply Digital
> Product Design. This coming from a person who has admittedly stuck
> with Interface Designer for so long.
>

This would be true if we designed only digital products. There's a number of
people who design interactive products that are analog too.
Think environments, medical devices, the SEAMS project, and a bunch of
others. Granted, a lot of interactive design work is digital, but not all.

Dan

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

Syndicate content Get the feed