Patriarchs of the Design Family

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

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. In this case, the core differentiator between
IntD and
other design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before form -- is buried.
When I
last saw Bill Moggridge speak at BayCHI a year or two ago, he defined
interaction
design as the design of look and feel of digital display surfaces: the
specific example
he gave was his design of the GRiD Compass (an early laptop) display. For
me,
this definition literally only skims the surface.

I would define interaction design as the design of the behavior of artifacts
and systems,
and secondarily the form that serves and embodies that behavior. Those
artifacts *might*
be digital, or might not. It just so happens that most artifacts and systems
that have
behaviors complex enough to have significant interaction consideration are
those that include
digital computers in one form or another.

Why is this distinction so important?

Traditional design disciplines have historically been concerned with the
design of form, not
behavior. Form is typically static, and is usually easily palpable and
visualizable. Behavior
is dynamic, temporal, dependent on input, and inherently non-palpable. Form
relies on
visualization as a primary design tool, and assumes a working knowledge of
human
perception in context. Behavior relies on narrative as a primary design
tool, and assumes a
working knowledge of human behaviors in context. Although I believe that
many (if not all)
overarching high-level processes are shared between most design disciplines,
it's also my
belief that the specific methods and practices of the design of behavior
must by necessity
be somewhat different than those that traditionally deal with form alone,
and are not part
of the tradition of traditional design disciplines.

It is true that some of the more progressive industrial design programs are
coming around to the design of behavior as a distinct element of product
design,
but this is still very much at the vanguard (as far as I can tell, at least
in in the US),
and does not represent a majority view in organizations such as IDSA.
Traditional design
disciplines are beginning to recognize that there is something different
about these
"new" kinds of design problems, but as long as they try to shoehorn the
design
of behavior into traditional form-oriented models and methods, I'm afraid
that we will continue to
have a "blind men and elephant" approach to and understanding of interaction
design.

However, on the bright side, as Kristoffer points out, it also means that
those of
us from disparate design and other disciplines who *do* recognize the
important
differences between traditional design and the design of behavior bring an
exceptional
diversity of skill and perspective to the problem. IntD has many roots in
many
disciplines, and that is both its strength and (when it comes to
practitioners
explaining themselves and the field to the rest of the world with a single
voice)
its Achilles' Heel.

All that said, I agree with Beth Mazur that the best way to take interaction
design
into the mainstream is to reach out to, affiliate with, and educate the
larger design
organizations.

Robert.
---

Robert Reimann
Bose Design Center
Framingham, MA 01701
http://www.bose.com <http://www.bose.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: molly w. steenson [mailto:molly at girlwonder.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:29 AM
To: challis at challishodge.com; discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family (was: New Uber
Design Org)

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. 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. Service design
comes out of industrial design (check out Ezio Manzini's work, for example),
but has a strong connection with architecture (think of the book "Cradle to
Cradle," of which one author is the former head of the University of
Virginia Architecture school).

Now finally, I'm realizing that maybe this is where all these different
views of interaction design come from. There's a difference, too, in how
it's defined in Europe versus in the US. And if we were really involving
Asian perspectives in this, it might look different yet again.

At 9:21 -0600 19/11/03, Challis Hodge wrote:

+++++

What do folks think of this?

<http://www.icograda.org/web/news-display.shtml?pfl=www/news-single-recent.p
aram&op2.rf1=164>
http://www.icograda.org/web/news-display.shtml?pfl=www/news-single-recent.pa
ram&op2.rf1=164
Aren't there more than two design disciplines?

+++++

I tossed the above out to see what thoughts might emerge. Interesting that
some folks came back to defend the orgs. I surely wasn't suggesting that
these orgs should be consulting with us before moving forward.

There were some other topics that I hoped would emerge though:

1. Are these two disciplines, graphic and industrial design, the roots of
all design disciplines? Did they spawn from architecture?

2. Some of us are so distant from these organizations that they are
meaningless. Why is this so? As a result can they adequately speak for all
of design? Can design have one voice anyway?

Any thoughts...?

-challis

_______________________________________________
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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.interactiondesigners.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20031120/1eddd256/attachment.htm

Comments

20 Nov 2003 - 10:14am
Beth Mazur
2003

Quoting "Reimann, Robert" <Robert_Reimann at bose.com>:

> 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. In this case, the core differentiator between
> IntD and other design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before
> form -- is buried.

I'm only peripherally familiar with industrial design, but the
experience that I've had with it suggests that it shares this
focus on behavior before form; then again, I worked with people
who were faculty at Carnegie Mellon's school of design, so
perhaps they aren't typical. But this perspective seems to be
supported by IDSA; here's some of the text from the "About ID"
page on their site that resonated with me yesterday:

Industrial design is the professional service of creating
and developing concepts and specifications that optimize
the function, value and appearance of products and systems
for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.

...

The industrial designer's unique contribution places emphasis
on those aspects of the product or system that relate most
directly to human characteristics, needs and interests. This
contribution requires specialized understanding of visual, tactile,
safety and convenience criteria, with concern for the user. Education
and experience in anticipating psychological, physiological and
sociological factors that influence and are perceived by the user
are essential industrial design resources.

>From http://www.idsa.org/webmodules/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=89&z=23

It may be that IDSA is trying to change a perception that it
shares with graphic design that the kudos and coverage goes to
those who do form over function. But I wonder if it is really
so rare to find the alternative in industrial design?

Beth Mazur
IDblog: http://idblog.org

20 Nov 2003 - 10:57am
Coryndon Luxmoore
2004

Having been trained in ID then spending the bulk of my career working in
the interaction design field. I would have to say that it is unfair to
characterize ID as unconcerned with the interaction of the individual
with the product. Every skill that I apply to interaction design was
first learned at the knees of product design; understanding your user,
collaborating with engineers, the value of elegant solutions, as well as
the overall design process.

During my time in the ID program at RISD. The students there were
obsessed with the idea of "ritual." The process by which a product is
used and incorporated into a user's daily life. After chatting with a
friend who teaches in the program I hear that this is still true. Is
this not interaction?

In both fields there are members who create beautiful form for the sake
of form to those members who focus on the need of the user to achieve a
task. Confusing those designs that get published in glossy magazines
with those that are the bulk of the work in the field is unfair. Can you
imagine what someone might say about interaction design if they just
judged us by the beautiful but not very functional flash and web work
out there?

I firmly believe that the future of interaction design and product
design are one. Neither field can be successful without the other. A
beautiful product design with a horrible interface is a horrible
product, A beautiful interface with a horrible product design is a
horrible product.

--Coryndon
__________________________________________________________
Coryndon Luxmoore
Design Architect
Dakasa
133 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
USA
e: cluxmoore at dakasa.com
t: 617.292.7700
f: 617.292.7704
____________________________________________________________
This email message and any files transmitted with it contain
confidential information
intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed.
If you
have received this email message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by
telephone or email and destroy the original message without making a
copy.
Thank you.

Dakasa
t: 617.292.7700
____________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.com] On Behalf Of Beth Mazur
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:15 AM
To: Reimann, Robert
Cc: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Quoting "Reimann, Robert" <Robert_Reimann at bose.com>:

> 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. In this case, the core differentiator between
> IntD and other design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before
> form -- is buried.

I'm only peripherally familiar with industrial design, but the
experience that I've had with it suggests that it shares this focus on
behavior before form; then again, I worked with people who were faculty
at Carnegie Mellon's school of design, so perhaps they aren't typical.
But this perspective seems to be
supported by IDSA; here's some of the text from the "About ID"
page on their site that resonated with me yesterday:

Industrial design is the professional service of creating
and developing concepts and specifications that optimize
the function, value and appearance of products and systems
for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.

...

The industrial designer's unique contribution places emphasis
on those aspects of the product or system that relate most
directly to human characteristics, needs and interests. This
contribution requires specialized understanding of visual, tactile,
safety and convenience criteria, with concern for the user. Education

and experience in anticipating psychological, physiological and
sociological factors that influence and are perceived by the user
are essential industrial design resources.

>From http://www.idsa.org/webmodules/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=89&z=23

It may be that IDSA is trying to change a perception that it shares with
graphic design that the kudos and coverage goes to those who do form
over function. But I wonder if it is really so rare to find the
alternative in industrial design?

Beth Mazur
IDblog: http://idblog.org
_______________________________________________
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/

20 Nov 2003 - 10:58am
Brad Lauster
2003

Here I go again, with the history...
Regarding Molly's mention of Bill Moggridge's indication that
interaction design is a sort of digital > industrial design:

In the early 1980's, while working on the GRiD Compass, Bill M. first
recognized the need for the equivalent of industrial design for
software interfaces and began using "Softface" to describe it (being a
contraction of software and interface).

Being an industrial designer, I think he may have been more concerned
with the form of the interface, than with the behavior (at least at the
time). It wasn't until the mid-1980's, when Bill M. began working with
Bill Verplank, that they began to focus more on the behavior and
started calling it Interaction Design.

This comes from interviews I did with Bill M. and Bill V. in 2001. As I
recall, Bill M. also discussed the story during his Seminar on People,
Computers, and Design talk[1] at Stanford in October 2003. Amazon.com
also tells me it's mentioned in Alan Cooper and Robert Reimann's,
"About Face 2.0."

[1]
http://hci.stanford.edu/seminar/abstracts/03-04/031003-moggridge.html

Cheers!
--Brad Lauster
< http://bradlauster.com/ >

On Nov 20, 2003, at 7:32 AM, Reimann, Robert wrote:
> 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. In this case, the core differentiator
> between
> IntD and
> other design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before form -- is
> buried.
> When I
> last saw Bill Moggridge speak at BayCHI a year or two ago, he defined
> interaction
> design as the design of look and feel of digital display surfaces: the
> specific example
> he gave was his design of the GRiD Compass (an early laptop) display.
> For
> me,
> this definition literally only skims the surface.
>
> I would define interaction design as the design of the behavior of
> artifacts
> and systems,
> and secondarily the form that serves and embodies that behavior. Those
> artifacts *might*
> be digital, or might not. It just so happens that most artifacts and
> systems
> that have
> behaviors complex enough to have significant interaction consideration
> are
> those that include
> digital computers in one form or another.
>
> Why is this distinction so important?
>
> Traditional design disciplines have historically been concerned with
> the
> design of form, not
> behavior. Form is typically static, and is usually easily palpable and
> visualizable. Behavior
> is dynamic, temporal, dependent on input, and inherently non-palpable.
> Form
> relies on
> visualization as a primary design tool, and assumes a working
> knowledge of
> human
> perception in context. Behavior relies on narrative as a primary design
> tool, and assumes a
> working knowledge of human behaviors in context. Although I believe
> that
> many (if not all)
> overarching high-level processes are shared between most design
> disciplines,
> it's also my
> belief that the specific methods and practices of the design of
> behavior
> must by necessity
> be somewhat different than those that traditionally deal with form
> alone,
> and are not part
> of the tradition of traditional design disciplines.
>
> It is true that some of the more progressive industrial design
> programs are
> coming around to the design of behavior as a distinct element of
> product
> design,
> but this is still very much at the vanguard (as far as I can tell, at
> least
> in in the US),
> and does not represent a majority view in organizations such as IDSA.
> Traditional design
> disciplines are beginning to recognize that there is something
> different
> about these
> "new" kinds of design problems, but as long as they try to shoehorn the
> design
> of behavior into traditional form-oriented models and methods, I'm
> afraid
> that we will continue to
> have a "blind men and elephant" approach to and understanding of
> interaction
> design.
>
> However, on the bright side, as Kristoffer points out, it also means
> that
> those of
> us from disparate design and other disciplines who *do* recognize the
> important
> differences between traditional design and the design of behavior
> bring an
> exceptional
> diversity of skill and perspective to the problem. IntD has many
> roots in
> many
> disciplines, and that is both its strength and (when it comes to
> practitioners
> explaining themselves and the field to the rest of the world with a
> single
> voice)
> its Achilles' Heel.
>
> All that said, I agree with Beth Mazur that the best way to take
> interaction
> design
> into the mainstream is to reach out to, affiliate with, and educate the
> larger design
> organizations.
>
> Robert.
> ---
>
> Robert Reimann
> Bose Design Center
> Framingham, MA 01701
> http://www.bose.com <http://www.bose.com>
** SNIP **

20 Nov 2003 - 11:05am
Dave Malouf
2005

I don't think that Robert was saying that ID doesn't deal w/ the user.
I think he was (correct me Robert if I'm wrong) that the final design is the
form, whereas IxD's try to focus on the behavior primarily and fit the form
over that. In fact many IxDs would probably not even concern themselves w/
the final form's aesthetics at all, whereas ID is very much involved in the
final aesthetics.

That isn't to say that IxD doesn't want to inform the final form, but that
IxD as a discipline (and again, not a person or role) at its core does not
design the final form of a product. The person involved can have that skill
and thus would have both IxD and ID disciplines under their belt, but these
are different disciplines in deed.

Like an IA who can also do graphic design ... These are two disciplines in
one body humanus.

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Coryndon Luxmoore
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:58 AM
To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Having been trained in ID then spending the bulk of my career working in the
interaction design field. I would have to say that it is unfair to
characterize ID as unconcerned with the interaction of the individual with
the product. Every skill that I apply to interaction design was first
learned at the knees of product design; understanding your user,
collaborating with engineers, the value of elegant solutions, as well as the
overall design process.

During my time in the ID program at RISD. The students there were obsessed
with the idea of "ritual." The process by which a product is used and
incorporated into a user's daily life. After chatting with a friend who
teaches in the program I hear that this is still true. Is this not
interaction?

In both fields there are members who create beautiful form for the sake of
form to those members who focus on the need of the user to achieve a task.
Confusing those designs that get published in glossy magazines with those
that are the bulk of the work in the field is unfair. Can you imagine what
someone might say about interaction design if they just judged us by the
beautiful but not very functional flash and web work out there?

I firmly believe that the future of interaction design and product design
are one. Neither field can be successful without the other. A beautiful
product design with a horrible interface is a horrible product, A beautiful
interface with a horrible product design is a horrible product.

--Coryndon
__________________________________________________________
Coryndon Luxmoore
Design Architect
Dakasa
133 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
USA
e: cluxmoore at dakasa.com
t: 617.292.7700
f: 617.292.7704
____________________________________________________________
This email message and any files transmitted with it contain confidential
information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is
addressed.
If you
have received this email message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by telephone or email and destroy the original message without
making a copy.
Thank you.

Dakasa
t: 617.292.7700
____________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.com] On Behalf Of Beth Mazur
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:15 AM
To: Reimann, Robert
Cc: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Quoting "Reimann, Robert" <Robert_Reimann at bose.com>:

> 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. In this case, the core differentiator between IntD and other
> design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before form -- is buried.

I'm only peripherally familiar with industrial design, but the experience
that I've had with it suggests that it shares this focus on behavior before
form; then again, I worked with people who were faculty at Carnegie Mellon's
school of design, so perhaps they aren't typical.
But this perspective seems to be
supported by IDSA; here's some of the text from the "About ID"
page on their site that resonated with me yesterday:

Industrial design is the professional service of creating
and developing concepts and specifications that optimize
the function, value and appearance of products and systems
for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.

...

The industrial designer's unique contribution places emphasis
on those aspects of the product or system that relate most
directly to human characteristics, needs and interests. This
contribution requires specialized understanding of visual, tactile,
safety and convenience criteria, with concern for the user. Education

and experience in anticipating psychological, physiological and
sociological factors that influence and are perceived by the user
are essential industrial design resources.

>From http://www.idsa.org/webmodules/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=89&z=23

It may be that IDSA is trying to change a perception that it shares with
graphic design that the kudos and coverage goes to those who do form over
function. But I wonder if it is really so rare to find the alternative in
industrial design?

Beth Mazur
IDblog: http://idblog.org
_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/

20 Nov 2003 - 11:29am
Robert Reimann
2003

Well, I didn't hear Bill M. mention behavior at the interview
I saw, or I probably wouldn't have had the reaction I did. He
may well have revised his views since starting work on his book.

And it's of course true that the two Bills coined the term
interaction design, which is, as you say, mentioned in AF2.

Robert.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Lauster [mailto:lists at bradlauster.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:59 AM
To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Here I go again, with the history...
Regarding Molly's mention of Bill Moggridge's indication that
interaction design is a sort of digital > industrial design:

In the early 1980's, while working on the GRiD Compass, Bill M. first
recognized the need for the equivalent of industrial design for
software interfaces and began using "Softface" to describe it (being a
contraction of software and interface).

Being an industrial designer, I think he may have been more concerned
with the form of the interface, than with the behavior (at least at the
time). It wasn't until the mid-1980's, when Bill M. began working with
Bill Verplank, that they began to focus more on the behavior and
started calling it Interaction Design.

This comes from interviews I did with Bill M. and Bill V. in 2001. As I
recall, Bill M. also discussed the story during his Seminar on People,
Computers, and Design talk[1] at Stanford in October 2003. Amazon.com
also tells me it's mentioned in Alan Cooper and Robert Reimann's,
"About Face 2.0."

[1]
http://hci.stanford.edu/seminar/abstracts/03-04/031003-moggridge.html

Cheers!
--Brad Lauster
< http://bradlauster.com/ >

On Nov 20, 2003, at 7:32 AM, Reimann, Robert wrote:
> 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. In this case, the core differentiator
> between
> IntD and
> other design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before form -- is
> buried.
> When I
> last saw Bill Moggridge speak at BayCHI a year or two ago, he defined
> interaction
> design as the design of look and feel of digital display surfaces: the
> specific example
> he gave was his design of the GRiD Compass (an early laptop) display.
> For
> me,
> this definition literally only skims the surface.
>
> I would define interaction design as the design of the behavior of
> artifacts
> and systems,
> and secondarily the form that serves and embodies that behavior. Those
> artifacts *might*
> be digital, or might not. It just so happens that most artifacts and
> systems
> that have
> behaviors complex enough to have significant interaction consideration
> are
> those that include
> digital computers in one form or another.
>
> Why is this distinction so important?
>
> Traditional design disciplines have historically been concerned with
> the
> design of form, not
> behavior. Form is typically static, and is usually easily palpable and
> visualizable. Behavior
> is dynamic, temporal, dependent on input, and inherently non-palpable.
> Form
> relies on
> visualization as a primary design tool, and assumes a working
> knowledge of
> human
> perception in context. Behavior relies on narrative as a primary design
> tool, and assumes a
> working knowledge of human behaviors in context. Although I believe
> that
> many (if not all)
> overarching high-level processes are shared between most design
> disciplines,
> it's also my
> belief that the specific methods and practices of the design of
> behavior
> must by necessity
> be somewhat different than those that traditionally deal with form
> alone,
> and are not part
> of the tradition of traditional design disciplines.
>
> It is true that some of the more progressive industrial design
> programs are
> coming around to the design of behavior as a distinct element of
> product
> design,
> but this is still very much at the vanguard (as far as I can tell, at
> least
> in in the US),
> and does not represent a majority view in organizations such as IDSA.
> Traditional design
> disciplines are beginning to recognize that there is something
> different
> about these
> "new" kinds of design problems, but as long as they try to shoehorn the
> design
> of behavior into traditional form-oriented models and methods, I'm
> afraid
> that we will continue to
> have a "blind men and elephant" approach to and understanding of
> interaction
> design.
>
> However, on the bright side, as Kristoffer points out, it also means
> that
> those of
> us from disparate design and other disciplines who *do* recognize the
> important
> differences between traditional design and the design of behavior
> bring an
> exceptional
> diversity of skill and perspective to the problem. IntD has many
> roots in
> many
> disciplines, and that is both its strength and (when it comes to
> practitioners
> explaining themselves and the field to the rest of the world with a
> single
> voice)
> its Achilles' Heel.
>
> All that said, I agree with Beth Mazur that the best way to take
> interaction
> design
> into the mainstream is to reach out to, affiliate with, and educate the
> larger design
> organizations.
>
> Robert.
> ---
>
> Robert Reimann
> Bose Design Center
> Framingham, MA 01701
> http://www.bose.com <http://www.bose.com>
** SNIP **

_______________________________________________
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/

20 Nov 2003 - 11:54am
Coryndon Luxmoore
2004

I disagree with his assertion that form is the primary driver of design.
It is the primary result it is the understanding of behavior that makes
a product truly successful. A great example of this is the Palm vs. the
Newton both interfaces were/are great but the form did not meet the
behaviors that the user required the product to meet.

To talk about design and to claim the design space requires that we step
up and take on form as a primary tool of our discipline. Form affect
usability, the behavior, and the experience. Form is the primary means
for expressing and supporting the behaviors. How many times have you
seen the product negatively affected by the form of the solution? Text
too small, buttons looking inactive etc. For me at least, claiming one
over the other is a strange prospect. Form is control over the solution
that I would be uncomfortable ceding to someone outside the interaction
design space. Form is a primary driver of behavior.

I believe that we must be responsible for form. Otherwise we already
have the formal disciplines, organizations, and titles out there to
support what we do.

Yes we will need people that specialize in form over behavior and
visa-versa but I believe all interaction designers must have both skills
to be successful.

--Coryndon
__________________________________________________________
Coryndon Luxmoore
Design Architect
Dakasa
133 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
USA
e: cluxmoore at dakasa.com
t: 617.292.7700
f: 617.292.7704
____________________________________________________________
This email message and any files transmitted with it contain
confidential information
intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed.
If you
have received this email message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by
telephone or email and destroy the original message without making a
copy.
Thank you.

Dakasa
t: 617.292.7700
____________________________________________________________

-----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: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:06 PM
To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

I don't think that Robert was saying that ID doesn't deal w/ the user. I
think he was (correct me Robert if I'm wrong) that the final design is
the form, whereas IxD's try to focus on the behavior primarily and fit
the form over that. In fact many IxDs would probably not even concern
themselves w/ the final form's aesthetics at all, whereas ID is very
much involved in the final aesthetics.

That isn't to say that IxD doesn't want to inform the final form, but
that IxD as a discipline (and again, not a person or role) at its core
does not design the final form of a product. The person involved can
have that skill and thus would have both IxD and ID disciplines under
their belt, but these are different disciplines in deed.

Like an IA who can also do graphic design ... These are two disciplines
in one body humanus.

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.
com] On Behalf Of Coryndon Luxmoore
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:58 AM
To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Having been trained in ID then spending the bulk of my career working in
the interaction design field. I would have to say that it is unfair to
characterize ID as unconcerned with the interaction of the individual
with the product. Every skill that I apply to interaction design was
first learned at the knees of product design; understanding your user,
collaborating with engineers, the value of elegant solutions, as well as
the overall design process.

During my time in the ID program at RISD. The students there were
obsessed with the idea of "ritual." The process by which a product is
used and incorporated into a user's daily life. After chatting with a
friend who teaches in the program I hear that this is still true. Is
this not interaction?

In both fields there are members who create beautiful form for the sake
of form to those members who focus on the need of the user to achieve a
task. Confusing those designs that get published in glossy magazines
with those that are the bulk of the work in the field is unfair. Can you
imagine what someone might say about interaction design if they just
judged us by the beautiful but not very functional flash and web work
out there?

I firmly believe that the future of interaction design and product
design are one. Neither field can be successful without the other. A
beautiful product design with a horrible interface is a horrible
product, A beautiful interface with a horrible product design is a
horrible product.

--Coryndon __________________________________________________________
Coryndon Luxmoore
Design Architect
Dakasa
133 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
USA
e: cluxmoore at dakasa.com
t: 617.292.7700
f: 617.292.7704
____________________________________________________________
This email message and any files transmitted with it contain
confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this
email message is addressed. If you have received this email message in
error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and
destroy the original message without making a copy.
Thank you.

Dakasa
t: 617.292.7700
____________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.com] On Behalf Of Beth Mazur
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:15 AM
To: Reimann, Robert
Cc: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Quoting "Reimann, Robert" <Robert_Reimann at bose.com>:

> 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. In this case, the core differentiator between IntD and other
> design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before form -- is buried.

I'm only peripherally familiar with industrial design, but the
experience that I've had with it suggests that it shares this focus on
behavior before form; then again, I worked with people who were faculty
at Carnegie Mellon's school of design, so perhaps they aren't typical.
But this perspective seems to be supported by IDSA; here's some of the
text from the "About ID"
page on their site that resonated with me yesterday:

Industrial design is the professional service of creating
and developing concepts and specifications that optimize
the function, value and appearance of products and systems
for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.

...

The industrial designer's unique contribution places emphasis
on those aspects of the product or system that relate most
directly to human characteristics, needs and interests. This
contribution requires specialized understanding of visual, tactile,
safety and convenience criteria, with concern for the user. Education

and experience in anticipating psychological, physiological and
sociological factors that influence and are perceived by the user
are essential industrial design resources.

>From http://www.idsa.org/webmodules/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=89&z=23

It may be that IDSA is trying to change a perception that it shares with
graphic design that the kudos and coverage goes to those who do form
over function. But I wonder if it is really so rare to find the
alternative in industrial design?

Beth Mazur
IDblog: http://idblog.org
_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/

20 Nov 2003 - 12:13pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Who said anything about "design"?
Or what people need to have in their skill set. Personally, I'm a bigger
believer of specialized team member as opposed to a group of generalists,
but that's just me. There is just too much for individuals to master.

What I was saying is that there is a specific discipline (not person) called
Interaction Design and that the focus of IxD is behavior and structure. Then
there are other design disciplines such as Industrial Design, that focuses
on the final form. Yes they are informed by the other layers, but their
primary discipline is about the form.

I would also say that even architectures primary battle w/ form vs. function
misses "behavior" b/c it has made the mistake that "function" = behavior and
thus does not have the methods or tools for managing and analyzing the
design of behavior.

I think that people confuse this discussion for lack of appreciation or
stepping on toes. That is further from the truth. I totally appreciate the
amazing designs by ID professionals and by IxD professionals or just people
who call themselves Product Designers but ID by itself is too generic to be
a focal point to move forward from where the same discipline includes
furniture (totally non-complex products) to transportation (totally complex
products). How can the same discipline handle that much range? IxD is a tool
to be added to a designer's toolbelt or team that with other disciplines
like graphic design, iconography, and writing all make up the final product.

Is this really a question about who owns this all? Who gets to direct it?
That is a different issue, which is most likely less determined by
discipline background and more determined by business culture, and business
case.

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Coryndon Luxmoore
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:54 PM
To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

I disagree with his assertion that form is the primary driver of design.
It is the primary result it is the understanding of behavior that makes a
product truly successful. A great example of this is the Palm vs. the Newton
both interfaces were/are great but the form did not meet the behaviors that
the user required the product to meet.

To talk about design and to claim the design space requires that we step up
and take on form as a primary tool of our discipline. Form affect usability,
the behavior, and the experience. Form is the primary means for expressing
and supporting the behaviors. How many times have you seen the product
negatively affected by the form of the solution? Text too small, buttons
looking inactive etc. For me at least, claiming one over the other is a
strange prospect. Form is control over the solution that I would be
uncomfortable ceding to someone outside the interaction design space. Form
is a primary driver of behavior.

I believe that we must be responsible for form. Otherwise we already have
the formal disciplines, organizations, and titles out there to support what
we do.

Yes we will need people that specialize in form over behavior and visa-versa
but I believe all interaction designers must have both skills to be
successful.

--Coryndon
__________________________________________________________
Coryndon Luxmoore
Design Architect
Dakasa
133 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
USA
e: cluxmoore at dakasa.com
t: 617.292.7700
f: 617.292.7704
____________________________________________________________
This email message and any files transmitted with it contain confidential
information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is
addressed.
If you
have received this email message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by telephone or email and destroy the original message without
making a copy.
Thank you.

Dakasa
t: 617.292.7700
____________________________________________________________

-----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: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:06 PM
To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

I don't think that Robert was saying that ID doesn't deal w/ the user. I
think he was (correct me Robert if I'm wrong) that the final design is the
form, whereas IxD's try to focus on the behavior primarily and fit the form
over that. In fact many IxDs would probably not even concern themselves w/
the final form's aesthetics at all, whereas ID is very much involved in the
final aesthetics.

That isn't to say that IxD doesn't want to inform the final form, but that
IxD as a discipline (and again, not a person or role) at its core does not
design the final form of a product. The person involved can have that skill
and thus would have both IxD and ID disciplines under their belt, but these
are different disciplines in deed.

Like an IA who can also do graphic design ... These are two disciplines in
one body humanus.

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.
com] On Behalf Of Coryndon Luxmoore
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:58 AM
To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Having been trained in ID then spending the bulk of my career working in the
interaction design field. I would have to say that it is unfair to
characterize ID as unconcerned with the interaction of the individual with
the product. Every skill that I apply to interaction design was first
learned at the knees of product design; understanding your user,
collaborating with engineers, the value of elegant solutions, as well as the
overall design process.

During my time in the ID program at RISD. The students there were obsessed
with the idea of "ritual." The process by which a product is used and
incorporated into a user's daily life. After chatting with a friend who
teaches in the program I hear that this is still true. Is this not
interaction?

In both fields there are members who create beautiful form for the sake of
form to those members who focus on the need of the user to achieve a task.
Confusing those designs that get published in glossy magazines with those
that are the bulk of the work in the field is unfair. Can you imagine what
someone might say about interaction design if they just judged us by the
beautiful but not very functional flash and web work out there?

I firmly believe that the future of interaction design and product design
are one. Neither field can be successful without the other. A beautiful
product design with a horrible interface is a horrible product, A beautiful
interface with a horrible product design is a horrible product.

--Coryndon __________________________________________________________
Coryndon Luxmoore
Design Architect
Dakasa
133 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
USA
e: cluxmoore at dakasa.com
t: 617.292.7700
f: 617.292.7704
____________________________________________________________
This email message and any files transmitted with it contain confidential
information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is
addressed. If you have received this email message in error, please notify
the sender immediately by telephone or email and destroy the original
message without making a copy.
Thank you.

Dakasa
t: 617.292.7700
____________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.com] On Behalf Of Beth Mazur
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:15 AM
To: Reimann, Robert
Cc: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Quoting "Reimann, Robert" <Robert_Reimann at bose.com>:

> 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. In this case, the core differentiator between IntD and other
> design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before form -- is buried.

I'm only peripherally familiar with industrial design, but the experience
that I've had with it suggests that it shares this focus on behavior before
form; then again, I worked with people who were faculty at Carnegie Mellon's
school of design, so perhaps they aren't typical.
But this perspective seems to be supported by IDSA; here's some of the text
from the "About ID"
page on their site that resonated with me yesterday:

Industrial design is the professional service of creating
and developing concepts and specifications that optimize
the function, value and appearance of products and systems
for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.

...

The industrial designer's unique contribution places emphasis
on those aspects of the product or system that relate most
directly to human characteristics, needs and interests. This
contribution requires specialized understanding of visual, tactile,
safety and convenience criteria, with concern for the user. Education

and experience in anticipating psychological, physiological and
sociological factors that influence and are perceived by the user
are essential industrial design resources.

>From http://www.idsa.org/webmodules/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=89&z=23

It may be that IDSA is trying to change a perception that it shares with
graphic design that the kudos and coverage goes to those who do form over
function. But I wonder if it is really so rare to find the alternative in
industrial design?

Beth Mazur
IDblog: http://idblog.org
_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________
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/

20 Nov 2003 - 12:20pm
Robert Reimann
2003

Beth Mazur wrote:

> I'm only peripherally familiar with industrial design, but the experience
> that I've had with it suggests that it shares this focus on behavior
before
> form; then again, I worked with people who were faculty at Carnegie
> Mellon's school of design, so perhaps they aren't typical.

CMU definitely falls into the "progressive" category
of programs that I mentioned.

> But this perspective seems to be
> supported by IDSA; here's some of the text from the "About ID"
> page on their site that resonated with me yesterday:

> Industrial design is the professional service of creating
> and developing concepts and specifications that optimize
> the function, value and appearance of products and systems
> for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.

I don't for a minute doubt the voiced desire of IDSA in this
regard. My concern is really more methodological than ideological.

And in this instance, a very important methodological point
is that FUNCTION <> BEHAVIOR (are you reading my mind, Dave?).
Machines function. Humans (and complex systems that need to
interact with humans) behave. Function is an artifact-centered
concept; behavior is a human-centered concept. Most
mature software functions reasonably well (i.e., it
doesn't crash much , and performs the tasks it claims to),
but behaves quite poorly from a human perspective.
I think much of the design community comes from a tradition
which takes the function of an artifact as a requirement
to which it looks to fit an appealing and appropriate
form for the context (form follows function). This works
for simple artifacts reasonably well, but much less so for
complex interactive artifacts.

Interaction designers (and like-mind designers in other fields,
as others are pointing out) realize that there is an additional
step: specified function must be translated into appealing
and useful behavior (which sometimes means changing the
function!) before form can be applied. And to understand
the required behavior, you need to understand the behavior
of the humans who will be using it.

It isn't my intent to criticize ID or other disciplines, nor to make
broad generalizations about practitioners. I would *love* to see
interaction design and industrial design draw closer together and
work cooperatively (as they do at Bose). I've participated in IDSA
events, and hope to do so constructively in the future.

But (as you might have guessed by now), what I do truly believe
is that the design of behavior is something relatively new and
different than the more established design fields, with its own
skills and developing methods, which the older design disciplines
will perhaps in time recognize and embrace (or develop in parallel
evolution). That's really the important point.

Robert.
---

Robert Reimann
Bose Design Center
Framingham, MA 01701
http://www.bose.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Beth Mazur [mailto:bowseat at bethmazur.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:15 AM
To: Reimann, Robert
Cc: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Quoting "Reimann, Robert" <Robert_Reimann at bose.com>:

> 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. In this case, the core differentiator between
> IntD and other design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before
> form -- is buried.

I'm only peripherally familiar with industrial design, but the experience
that I've had with it suggests that it shares this focus on behavior before
form; then again, I worked with people who were faculty at Carnegie Mellon's
school of design, so perhaps they aren't typical. But this perspective seems
to be
supported by IDSA; here's some of the text from the "About ID"
page on their site that resonated with me yesterday:

Industrial design is the professional service of creating
and developing concepts and specifications that optimize
the function, value and appearance of products and systems
for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.

...

The industrial designer's unique contribution places emphasis
on those aspects of the product or system that relate most
directly to human characteristics, needs and interests. This
contribution requires specialized understanding of visual, tactile,
safety and convenience criteria, with concern for the user. Education
and experience in anticipating psychological, physiological and
sociological factors that influence and are perceived by the user
are essential industrial design resources.

>From http://www.idsa.org/webmodules/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=89&z=23

It may be that IDSA is trying to change a perception that it shares with
graphic design that the kudos and coverage goes to those who do form over
function. But I wonder if it is really so rare to find the alternative in
industrial design?

Beth Mazur
IDblog: http://idblog.org

20 Nov 2003 - 12:33pm
Beth Mazur
2003

Quoting Brad Lauster <lists at bradlauster.com>:
> http://hci.stanford.edu/seminar/abstracts/03-04/031003-moggridge.html

Thanks for this pointer! Stanford has some very nice (and free!)
talks on video available online (including the talk Bill Moggridge
did) as part of their fall HCI seminar. Here's a link to that
list: http://tinyurl.com/sd77

Beth Mazur
IDblog: http://idblog.org

20 Nov 2003 - 1:29pm
Kristoffer Åberg
2003

A very interesting discussion I must say. I came to think of a paper
presented at DIS 2002, "Form is Function" by Bosse Westerlund, downloadable
at http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/CID-173.pdf

"A designer usually intends an artefact to have some function(s). This
influences the way (s)he designs the artefact and chooses to shape its form
in such a way that it gives the user clues to the intended functions. Doing
so the form itself becomes an intended function...The user is influenced by
the form of the artifact, as well as its other properties. A user may or may
not use the artefact for the same functions as were intended in the first
place. But if (s)he uses the artefact for its intended functions, the form
has probably helped. Then the form is a function to the user as well."

In addition to form and function the paper also deals with the *meanings*
users acquire from dealing with artefacts; taking the cue from Robert I
think meaning has close relationship to behaviour, partly due to having read
another interesting piece of literature, Paul Dourish's "Where the Action
Is" (http://www.dourish.com/embodied/). Maybe I'm running off on a tangent
here; some bedside reading for the interested, for what its worth.

Perpetually exploring my professional relationship with my industrial
designer colleagues I would side with Coryndon - the future of interaction
design and industrial design are one, at least in the domains I'm active in,
mobile and ubiquitous computing (I'd love to hear your thoughts on that!).
Whether this means "über designers" mastering both interaction design and
industrial design, a focus on either interaction design or industrial design
but with some skills from the other discipline, or inter-disciplinary
collaboration will be interesting to see (I have personal experience only
from the latter two...yet). But in the meantime I'm trying to improve my
visualization skills, building furniture and the like, to get a better sense
of form, all in order to facilitate discussion and collaboration with
industrial designers. And to educate them about interaction and behaviour,
wherever needed...

/Kristoffer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Reimann, Robert" <Robert_Reimann at bose.com>
To: <discuss at interactiondesigners.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:25 PM
Subject: FW: [ID Discuss] 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. However,
> form is a relatively well-understood problem with a broad
> range of design tools and talents available, while behavior
> is playing catch-up. We need to focus where the effort is most
> needed. It would be great if all interaction designers could also
> be excellent visual or industrial designers, but in my experience
> there are few people with all the requisite talents and training
> (I however do agree that it's very helpful for interaction designers
> to have some level of basic visual design skill). I have seen extremely
> successful collaboration between graphic designers, interaction designers,
> and industrial designers, and don't believe that it's in any way an
> all-or-nothing game.
>
> I would also argue that form is not, or shouldn't be, the driver of
> behavior, except perhaps at the very detailed level. At the conceptual and
> structural level, I think it must be the other way around. But these are I
> think all methodological quibbles, not an ideological split.
>
> Robert.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Coryndon Luxmoore [mailto:cluxmoore at dakasa.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:54 PM
> To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family
>
>
> I disagree with his assertion that form is the primary driver of design.
It
> is the primary result it is the understanding of behavior that makes a
> product truly successful. A great example of this is the Palm vs. the
Newton
> both interfaces were/are great but the form did not meet the behaviors
that
> the user required the product to meet.
>
> To talk about design and to claim the design space requires that we step
up
> and take on form as a primary tool of our discipline. Form affect
usability,
> the behavior, and the experience. Form is the primary means for expressing
> and supporting the behaviors. How many times have you seen the product
> negatively affected by the form of the solution? Text too small, buttons
> looking inactive etc. For me at least, claiming one over the other is a
> strange prospect. Form is control over the solution that I would be
> uncomfortable ceding to someone outside the interaction design space. Form
> is a primary driver of behavior.
>
> I believe that we must be responsible for form. Otherwise we already have
> the formal disciplines, organizations, and titles out there to support
what
> we do.
>
> Yes we will need people that specialize in form over behavior and
visa-versa
> but I believe all interaction designers must have both skills to be
> successful.
>
> --Coryndon __________________________________________________________
> Coryndon Luxmoore
> Design Architect
> Dakasa
> 133 Federal Street
> Boston, MA 02110
> USA
> e: cluxmoore at dakasa.com
> t: 617.292.7700
> f: 617.292.7704
> ____________________________________________________________
> This email message and any files transmitted with it contain confidential
> information
> intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed.
If
> you
> have received this email message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately by
> telephone or email and destroy the original message without making a copy.
> Thank you.
>
> Dakasa
> t: 617.292.7700
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> -----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: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:06 PM
> To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family
>
>
> I don't think that Robert was saying that ID doesn't deal w/ the user. I
> think he was (correct me Robert if I'm wrong) that the final design is the
> form, whereas IxD's try to focus on the behavior primarily and fit the
form
> over that. In fact many IxDs would probably not even concern themselves w/
> the final form's aesthetics at all, whereas ID is very much involved in
the
> final aesthetics.
>
> That isn't to say that IxD doesn't want to inform the final form, but that
> IxD as a discipline (and again, not a person or role) at its core does not
> design the final form of a product. The person involved can have that
skill
> and thus would have both IxD and ID disciplines under their belt, but
these
> are different disciplines in deed.
>
> Like an IA who can also do graphic design ... These are two disciplines in
> one body humanus.
>
> -- dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
> ers.
> com] On Behalf Of Coryndon Luxmoore
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:58 AM
> To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family
>
> Having been trained in ID then spending the bulk of my career working in
the
> interaction design field. I would have to say that it is unfair to
> characterize ID as unconcerned with the interaction of the individual with
> the product. Every skill that I apply to interaction design was first
> learned at the knees of product design; understanding your user,
> collaborating with engineers, the value of elegant solutions, as well as
the
> overall design process.
>
> During my time in the ID program at RISD. The students there were obsessed
> with the idea of "ritual." The process by which a product is used and
> incorporated into a user's daily life. After chatting with a friend who
> teaches in the program I hear that this is still true. Is this not
> interaction?
>
> In both fields there are members who create beautiful form for the sake of
> form to those members who focus on the need of the user to achieve a task.
> Confusing those designs that get published in glossy magazines with those
> that are the bulk of the work in the field is unfair. Can you imagine what
> someone might say about interaction design if they just judged us by the
> beautiful but not very functional flash and web work out there?
>
> I firmly believe that the future of interaction design and product design
> are one. Neither field can be successful without the other. A beautiful
> product design with a horrible interface is a horrible product, A
beautiful
> interface with a horrible product design is a horrible product.
>
> --Coryndon __________________________________________________________
> Coryndon Luxmoore
> Design Architect
> Dakasa
> 133 Federal Street
> Boston, MA 02110
> USA
> e: cluxmoore at dakasa.com
> t: 617.292.7700
> f: 617.292.7704
____________________________________________________________
> This email message and any files transmitted with it contain confidential
> information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is
> addressed. If you have received this email message in error, please notify
> the sender immediately by telephone or email and destroy the original
> message without making a copy.
> Thank you.
>
> Dakasa
> t: 617.292.7700
____________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
> ers.com] On Behalf Of Beth Mazur
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:15 AM
> To: Reimann, Robert
> Cc: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family
>
>
> Quoting "Reimann, Robert" <Robert_Reimann at bose.com>:
>
> > 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. In this case, the core differentiator between IntD and other
> > design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before form -- is buried.
>
> I'm only peripherally familiar with industrial design, but the experience
> that I've had with it suggests that it shares this focus on behavior
before
> form; then again, I worked with people who were faculty at Carnegie
Mellon's
> school of design, so perhaps they aren't typical. But this perspective
seems
> to be supported by IDSA; here's some of the text from the "About ID"
> page on their site that resonated with me yesterday:
>
> Industrial design is the professional service of creating
> and developing concepts and specifications that optimize
> the function, value and appearance of products and systems
> for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.
>
> ...
>
> The industrial designer's unique contribution places emphasis
> on those aspects of the product or system that relate most
> directly to human characteristics, needs and interests. This
> contribution requires specialized understanding of visual, tactile,
> safety and convenience criteria, with concern for the user. Education
>
> and experience in anticipating psychological, physiological and
> sociological factors that influence and are perceived by the user
> are essential industrial design resources.
>
> >From http://www.idsa.org/webmodules/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=89&z=23
>
> It may be that IDSA is trying to change a perception that it shares with
> graphic design that the kudos and coverage goes to those who do form over
> function. But I wonder if it is really so rare to find the alternative in
> industrial design?
>
> Beth Mazur
> IDblog: http://idblog.org _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

20 Nov 2003 - 3:14pm
Coryndon Luxmoore
2004

I am not sure that form is truly understood in the digital realm. Maybe
the reason that the computer (PC) interface has failed to really evolve
over the last 20 years (except for maybe the browser) is due to a lack
of focus on form by the interaction design profession. (I know this is a
bit of an exageration but the question still remains why so slow!)

We are restricted by form in our design due to the constraints of
digital technology. This is really no different than the situation that
physical product designers face as they design their product. We can try
to fool ourselves into believing that we are not tied to form but the
reality is that most of the time we are. We are limited to the forms
that users have been taught and that have been created for us by the
creators of operating systems. A menu is a menu and we must hew to the
digital environment the user is working in.

I believe that it is time to claim the aesthetic form as an integral and
PRIMARY part of our jobs. I believe that this will help drive innovation
and growth in our field as well as more successful solutions coming from
the practitioners of the field.

"[ID's] primary discipline is about the form."

This is a true statement if you see form as being the product that is
produced to meet a users behavioral need. We also must produce a product
to meet a behavioral need. Both ID and interaction design use behavior
as a starting point to get to the point of realizing a final form. ID as
a practice does a better job at understanding a producing a functional
and aesthetically successful form. I believe this is something we can
learn form them to strengthen our own practice.

I care not a whit politically who controls the process. However, I
believe that we must claim aesthetic design and form as an integral
primary part of our product and not treat it as a second class citizen.

--Coryndon
__________________________________________________________
Coryndon Luxmoore
Design Architect
Dakasa
133 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
USA
e: cluxmoore at dakasa.com
t: 617.292.7700
f: 617.292.7704
____________________________________________________________
This email message and any files transmitted with it contain
confidential information
intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed.
If you
have received this email message in error, please notify the sender
immediately by
telephone or email and destroy the original message without making a
copy.
Thank you.

Dakasa
t: 617.292.7700
____________________________________________________________

21 Nov 2003 - 12:53pm
Anirudha Joshi
2003

Very interesting discussion indeed. Couldn’t help adding a few things
(thanks Arundhati Roy):

>>>Traditional design disciplines have historically been concerned with
the design of form, not
behavior.  Form is typically static, and is usually easily palpable and
visualizable. Behavior
is dynamic, temporal, dependent on input, and inherently non-palpable. 
Form relies on
visualization as a primary design tool, and assumes a working knowledge
of human
perception in context. Behavior relies on narrative as a primary design
tool, and assumes a
working knowledge of human behaviors in context. 

Thing 1:
I don’t agree that designers have not been concerned with dynamic,
temporal aspects. Is film direction a design task? Of course no film
director would call himself a designer, but I believe that film
direction is a design task, although with a lot of specialization.
<plug> (Some communication design alumni from our school make films -
professionally.) </plug>

It is also an interesting analogy to interaction design in other ways.
They too work in large teams, they too have diversity, they too depend a
lot on technology and they too have processes. A film director is
'centrally responsible' for the creative output of the film, though
there are many other creative people in the team (writers,
cinematographers, editors, actors, music directors etc.) Many great film
directors also prefer to shoot their film, to edit it or to write their
scripts. But they still work with professionals from other field, and
carry the central responsibility. And they are 'designers' in many ways.

>>> It is true that some of the more progressive industrial design
programs are
coming around to the design of behavior as a distinct element of product
design,
but this is still very much at the vanguard (as far as I can tell, at
least in in the US),
and does not represent a majority view in organizations such as IDSA. 
Traditional design
disciplines are beginning to recognize that there is something different
about these
"new" kinds of design problems, but as long as they try to shoehorn the
design
of behavior into traditional form-oriented models and methods, I'm
afraid that we will continue to
have a "blind men and elephant" approach to and understanding
of interaction design.

Thing 2:
I come from an Indian design school and we define design as a 'problem
solving process'. That’s cool, because it is so flexible, and allows
people to specialize in a chosen field. So design means different things
for different kind of products - somewhere it means form, somewhere it
means function (!= behaviour), sometimes it means behaviour (!=
function) and sometimes it means content. And of course, sometimes a
combination.

We are today doing interaction design like people designed automobiles
in the late 1800s. We are usually struggling with questions like:
"Do we need a clutch? Where does the accelerator go? Should we have a
circular steering wheel or do we need a straight steering rod? How about
a joy stick? Do passengers sit on the ground, a stool or a chair?"
Humanity has moved on from these problems, and so automobile designers
(subset of interaction designers) concentrate on form. But other
interaction designers concentrate on other things. For example, an
educational toy designer does concentrate on behaviour (even learning).
In this case, he is also a little bit of an inventor and a
educationalist. No wonder many interaction designers in India come from
both industrial design and communication design backgrounds <plug plug
plug>.

>>>I firmly believe that the future of interaction design and product
design are one. Neither field can be successful without the other. A
beautiful product design with a horrible interface is a horrible
product. A beautiful interface with a horrible product design is a
horrible product.

Thing 3:
Well said Coryndon Luxmoore. May I quote you in my class please?

Anirudha

21 Nov 2003 - 12:08am
Olly Wright
2007

At the symposium we had last week, Bill Moggridge talked about
interaction design and industrial design. Here is the abstract for
the talk (it's pretty thorough):

http://www.interaction-ivrea.it/en/news/education/2003-04/symposium/programme/moggridge/index.asp

Bill relayed his own story about industrial and interaction design:
working on the GRID computer in 1981 (IIRC), he realized when he took
home the prototype that all the work he was doing on the exterior of
the machine, he ceased to notice in about five minutes -- it was what
the GRID did, namely, its interactions and software -- that really
mattered. He said that he realized then that he needed to work with
the software, not just the design of the exterior, in order to be
really designing the computer.

At 8:58 -0800 20/11/03, Brad Lauster wrote:
>Here I go again, with the history...
>Regarding Molly's mention of Bill Moggridge's indication that
>interaction design is a sort of digital > industrial design:
>
>In the early 1980's, while working on the GRiD Compass, Bill M.
>first recognized the need for the equivalent of industrial design
>for software interfaces and began using "Softface" to describe it
>(being a contraction of software and interface).
>
>Being an industrial designer, I think he may have been more
>concerned with the form of the interface, than with the behavior (at
>least at the time). It wasn't until the mid-1980's, when Bill M.
>began working with Bill Verplank, that they began to focus more on
>the behavior and started calling it Interaction Design.
>
>This comes from interviews I did with Bill M. and Bill V. in 2001.
>As I recall, Bill M. also discussed the story during his Seminar on
>People, Computers, and Design talk[1] at Stanford in October 2003.
>Amazon.com also tells me it's mentioned in Alan Cooper and Robert
>Reimann's, "About Face 2.0."
>
>[1] http://hci.stanford.edu/seminar/abstracts/03-04/031003-moggridge.html
>
>
>Cheers!
>--Brad Lauster
>< http://bradlauster.com/ >
>
>
>
>
>On Nov 20, 2003, at 7:32 AM, Reimann, Robert wrote:
>>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. In this case, the core differentiator between
>>IntD and
>>other design disciplines -- a focus on behavior before form -- is buried.
>>When I
>>last saw Bill Moggridge speak at BayCHI a year or two ago, he defined
>>interaction
>>design as the design of look and feel of digital display surfaces: the
>>specific example
>>he gave was his design of the GRiD Compass (an early laptop) display. For
>>me,
>>this definition literally only skims the surface.
>>
>>I would define interaction design as the design of the behavior of artifacts
>>and systems,
>>and secondarily the form that serves and embodies that behavior. Those
>>artifacts *might*
>>be digital, or might not. It just so happens that most artifacts and systems
>>that have
>>behaviors complex enough to have significant interaction consideration are
>>those that include
>>digital computers in one form or another.
>>
>>Why is this distinction so important?
>>
>>Traditional design disciplines have historically been concerned with the
>>design of form, not
>>behavior. Form is typically static, and is usually easily palpable and
>>visualizable. Behavior
>>is dynamic, temporal, dependent on input, and inherently non-palpable. Form
>>relies on
>>visualization as a primary design tool, and assumes a working knowledge of
>>human
>>perception in context. Behavior relies on narrative as a primary design
>>tool, and assumes a
>>working knowledge of human behaviors in context. Although I believe that
>>many (if not all)
>>overarching high-level processes are shared between most design disciplines,
>>it's also my
>>belief that the specific methods and practices of the design of behavior
>>must by necessity
>>be somewhat different than those that traditionally deal with form alone,
>>and are not part
>>of the tradition of traditional design disciplines.
>>
>>It is true that some of the more progressive industrial design programs are
>>coming around to the design of behavior as a distinct element of product
>>design,
>>but this is still very much at the vanguard (as far as I can tell, at least
>>in in the US),
>>and does not represent a majority view in organizations such as IDSA.
>>Traditional design
>>disciplines are beginning to recognize that there is something different
>>about these
>>"new" kinds of design problems, but as long as they try to shoehorn the
>>design
>>of behavior into traditional form-oriented models and methods, I'm afraid
>>that we will continue to
>>have a "blind men and elephant" approach to and understanding of interaction
>>design.
>>
>>However, on the bright side, as Kristoffer points out, it also means that
>>those of
>>us from disparate design and other disciplines who *do* recognize the
>>important
>>differences between traditional design and the design of behavior bring an
>>exceptional
>>diversity of skill and perspective to the problem. IntD has many roots in
>>many
>>disciplines, and that is both its strength and (when it comes to
>>practitioners
>>explaining themselves and the field to the rest of the world with a single
>>voice)
>>its Achilles' Heel.
>>
>>All that said, I agree with Beth Mazur that the best way to take interaction
>>design
>>into the mainstream is to reach out to, affiliate with, and educate the
>>larger design
>>organizations.
>>
>> Robert.
>>---
>>
>>Robert Reimann
>>Bose Design Center
>>Framingham, MA 01701
>>http://www.bose.com <http://www.bose.com>
>** SNIP **
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.interactiondesigners.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20031121/64912410/attachment.htm

21 Nov 2003 - 1:58pm
Anirudha Joshi
2003

Correcting some typos in my last msg:

Humanity has moved on from these problems, and so automobile designers
(subset of INDUSTRIAL designers) concentrate on form. But other
INDUSTRIAL designers concentrate on other things. For example, an
educational toy ...

21 Nov 2003 - 5:02am
CD Evans
2004

I kind of feel this discussion is becoming convinced into thinking
that industrial design is a successful practice. No offence to the
Industrial Designers reading this discussion, but the interaction
design of the automobile hasn't changed in almost, what, 80 years?

I consider that failure. Any 'thing' that has been accepted by
society should evolve. The car was designed as is for quick jaunts
into town or to country, not for three hour commutes, or for driving
across canada.

I'm starting to question the evolution in computing as well. It pangs
of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. And it is broken, very broken.
Look at it! It's horrible. Square, slow, inhumane, unmoving, Silent
and crippling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this may be an inheritance from a
by-product of product design, accepting the bare minimum of a working
model and very rarely revisiting the original thought.

Meanwhile, people suffer.

'Interactions' and 'Products' have failed to continue to evolve. I
say we should be designing 'Systems'.

CD Evans
A Systems Designer

At 11:58 am -0800 21/11/03, Prof. Anirudha Joshi wrote:
>Correcting some typos in my last msg:
>
>Humanity has moved on from these problems, and so automobile designers
>(subset of INDUSTRIAL designers) concentrate on form. But other
>INDUSTRIAL designers concentrate on other things. For example, an
>educational toy ...

21 Nov 2003 - 9:32am
Robert Reimann
2003

Prof. Anirudha Joshi wrote:

> I don't agree that designers have not been concerned with dynamic,
> temporal aspects. Is film direction a design task?

Yes, good point (though I did mean traditional design disciplines,
which film is definitely not). I think IxD can learn (and has learned)
a great deal from film: use of narrative/scenarios, storyboards,
method acting/role playing as a means of understanding users,
all of these techniques come from fiction/drama/film. Interestingly,
I think that the form-based aspects of film are less generally
applicable to IxD than the narrative aspects, but that is probably
a fertile ground for exploration.

I also agree with Coryndon about interface/product design,
though I'd phrase it a bit differently: there shouldn't be
a distinction between "interface" and "product". Product
design, for products with complex behaviors, *is* the design
of the behavior + form that supports it, whether that form
be on a screen or embodied physically (or both).

Robert.

-----Original Message-----
From: Prof. Anirudha Joshi [mailto:anirudha at iitb.ac.in]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 1:54 PM
To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

Very interesting discussion indeed. Couldn't help adding a few things
(thanks Arundhati Roy):

>>>Traditional design disciplines have historically been concerned with
the design of form, not
behavior.  Form is typically static, and is usually easily palpable and
visualizable. Behavior
is dynamic, temporal, dependent on input, and inherently non-palpable. 
Form relies on
visualization as a primary design tool, and assumes a working knowledge of
human perception in context. Behavior relies on narrative as a primary
design tool, and assumes a
working knowledge of human behaviors in context. 

Thing 1:
I don't agree that designers have not been concerned with dynamic, temporal
aspects. Is film direction a design task? Of course no film director would
call himself a designer, but I believe that film direction is a design task,
although with a lot of specialization. <plug> (Some communication design
alumni from our school make films -
professionally.) </plug>

It is also an interesting analogy to interaction design in other ways. They
too work in large teams, they too have diversity, they too depend a lot on
technology and they too have processes. A film director is 'centrally
responsible' for the creative output of the film, though there are many
other creative people in the team (writers, cinematographers, editors,
actors, music directors etc.) Many great film directors also prefer to shoot
their film, to edit it or to write their scripts. But they still work with
professionals from other field, and carry the central responsibility. And
they are 'designers' in many ways.

>>> It is true that some of the more progressive industrial design
programs are
coming around to the design of behavior as a distinct element of product
design,
but this is still very much at the vanguard (as far as I can tell, at least
in in the US),
and does not represent a majority view in organizations such as IDSA. 
Traditional design
disciplines are beginning to recognize that there is something different
about these
"new" kinds of design problems, but as long as they try to shoehorn the
design
of behavior into traditional form-oriented models and methods, I'm afraid
that we will continue to
have a "blind men and elephant" approach to and understanding of interaction
design.

Thing 2:
I come from an Indian design school and we define design as a 'problem
solving process'. That's cool, because it is so flexible, and allows people
to specialize in a chosen field. So design means different things for
different kind of products - somewhere it means form, somewhere it means
function (!= behaviour), sometimes it means behaviour (!=
function) and sometimes it means content. And of course, sometimes a
combination.

We are today doing interaction design like people designed automobiles in
the late 1800s. We are usually struggling with questions like: "Do we need a
clutch? Where does the accelerator go? Should we have a circular steering
wheel or do we need a straight steering rod? How about a joy stick? Do
passengers sit on the ground, a stool or a chair?" Humanity has moved on
from these problems, and so automobile designers (subset of interaction
designers) concentrate on form. But other interaction designers concentrate
on other things. For example, an educational toy designer does concentrate
on behaviour (even learning). In this case, he is also a little bit of an
inventor and a educationalist. No wonder many interaction designers in India
come from both industrial design and communication design backgrounds <plug
plug
plug>.

>>>I firmly believe that the future of interaction design and product
design are one. Neither field can be successful without the other. A
beautiful product design with a horrible interface is a horrible product. A
beautiful interface with a horrible product design is a horrible product.

Thing 3:
Well said Coryndon Luxmoore. May I quote you in my class please?

Anirudha

22 Nov 2003 - 7:12pm
kannan_s at exc...
2003

The starting point in the evolutionary process provides you with the greatest opportunity for as you call it "system design". After that, in a capitalist society in an age of mass production, design alternatives are delimited by previous choices that have been made. For instance, in the automobile example, the cost of setting up a new production line for a totally different design must make financial sense.
But in fairness there is a lot of inertia as well. Comprehending delimitations from inertia ought to be the first step that a designer can take to have a substantive impact on the design of any product. Wherever you see inertia tear it open. Go ahead call yourself system designer, if that helps to remind you that you are in this business to have an impact.

Cheers
Kannan Solayappan

--- On Fri 11/21, CD Evans < clifton at infostyling.com > wrote:
From: CD Evans [mailto: clifton at infostyling.com]
To: anirudha at iitb.ac.in, discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:02:35 +0000
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design Family

<br><br>I kind of feel this discussion is becoming convinced into thinking <br>that industrial design is a successful practice. No offence to the <br>Industrial Designers reading this discussion, but the interaction <br>design of the automobile hasn't changed in almost, what, 80 years?<br><br>I consider that failure. Any 'thing' that has been accepted by <br>society should evolve. The car was designed as is for quick jaunts <br>into town or to country, not for three hour commutes, or for driving <br>across canada.<br><br>I'm starting to question the evolution in computing as well. It pangs <br>of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. And it is broken, very broken. <br>Look at it! It's horrible. Square, slow, inhumane, unmoving, Silent <br>and crippling.<br><br>Correct me if I'm wrong, but this may be an inheritance from a <br>by-product of product design, accepting the bare minimum of a working <br>model and very rarely revisiting the original thought.<br><br>Meanwhile, people s
uffer.<br><br>'Interactions' and 'Products' have failed to continue to evolve. I <br>say we should be designing 'Systems'.<br><br>CD Evans<br>A Systems Designer<br><br><br><br><br>At 11:58 am -0800 21/11/03, Prof. Anirudha Joshi wrote:<br>>Correcting some typos in my last msg:<br>><br>>Humanity has moved on from these problems, and so automobile designers<br>>(subset of INDUSTRIAL designers) concentrate on form. But other<br>>INDUSTRIAL designers concentrate on other things. For example, an<br>>educational toy ...<br>_______________________________________________<br>Interaction Design Discussion List<br>discuss at interactiondesigners.com<br>--<br>to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com<br>--<br>Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com<br>--<br>Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)<br>http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/<br>--<br>http://interactiondesigners.com/<br>

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

24 Nov 2003 - 4:40am
Olly Wright
2007

Not true: major car manufacturers are indeed looking at interaction
design and automobiles. Some of the innovations you'll see in the
future will be service related (what happens in a future where a car
is a shared commodity, and not an owned resource) and will directly
affect the interactions the car has with the road (what if a car
couldn't have accidents?). These are not industrial design shifts, or
digital industrial design, but something much different.

It's important to realize that car design happens on long timelines
(you're designing for something 10 years out, for instance) -- and to
make a short-term strategic design decision is to short-change the
long-term viability of what you're designing.

And if you're a web designer/architect/software person who's used to
dealing with very short timeframes (and projects and companies that
no longer exist), it's very interesting to think of automotive
design. It's a different type of problem to solve altogether.

m.

At 11:02 +0000 21/11/03, CD Evans wrote:
>I kind of feel this discussion is becoming convinced into thinking
>that industrial design is a successful practice. No offence to the
>Industrial Designers reading this discussion, but the interaction
>design of the automobile hasn't changed in almost, what, 80 years?
>
>I consider that failure. Any 'thing' that has been accepted by
>society should evolve. The car was designed as is for quick jaunts
>into town or to country, not for three hour commutes, or for driving
>across canada.
>
>I'm starting to question the evolution in computing as well. It
>pangs of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. And it is broken, very
>broken. Look at it! It's horrible. Square, slow, inhumane, unmoving,
>Silent and crippling.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but this may be an inheritance from a
>by-product of product design, accepting the bare minimum of a
>working model and very rarely revisiting the original thought.
>
>Meanwhile, people suffer.
>
>'Interactions' and 'Products' have failed to continue to evolve. I
>say we should be designing 'Systems'.
>
>CD Evans
>A Systems Designer
>
>
>
>
>At 11:58 am -0800 21/11/03, Prof. Anirudha Joshi wrote:
>>Correcting some typos in my last msg:
>>
>>Humanity has moved on from these problems, and so automobile designers
>>(subset of INDUSTRIAL designers) concentrate on form. But other
>>INDUSTRIAL designers concentrate on other things. For example, an
>>educational toy ...
>_______________________________________________
>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