RE: IxD & ID

21 Nov 2003 - 10:10am
11 years ago
3 replies
526 reads
Elizabeth Bacon
2003

There's another major difference in the practice of Interaction Design and
Industrial Design that nobody's cited yet. For the most part, the
practitioners of Industrial Design have the chops to build the products that
they're designing, at least up to highly-evolved prototypes which are almost
as realistic in their function as the final product.

However, I don't think that most Interaction Designers are capable of
creating such highly evolved prototypes, which would equate in the digital
realm to prototypes which are created with working code. IxDs, in my
experience, generally aren't as equipped to follow through with or argue for
some of the intricate functional aspects of our design solutions as
Industrial Designers are in the related detail of their product designs.
(Web IxDs might be a major exception to this statement, but maybe not if
we're talking about web applications.)

I daresay that most IxDs are more equipped to fully handle the form side of
a digital design, rather than the functional, despite needing desperately to
affect/understand/innovate the functional side since we've gone ahead and
defined the behavioral side. Do others, like me, experience this situation
as a challenge to their practice?

Cheers,
EB

-----Original Message-----
From: Beth Mazur [mailto:bowseat at bethmazur.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:08 PM
To: discuss at interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: IxD & ID (was RE: [ID Discuss] Patriarchs of the Design
Family)

At 2:49 PM -0500 11/20/03, David Heller wrote:
>So are we in agreement then that there are two distinct disciplines?

Yikes! When I mentioned digital industrial design, I certainly didn't mean
to imply that traditional non-digital industrial design and interaction
design weren't distinct (or at least, didn't have unique aspects to them).

I was more or less going after the commonalities (in the same way that
some try to focus on the commonalities of the world's religions). This
all came about because we were wondering if an industrial design
organization could represent us, and I was suggesting that they
might, given that to some extent, we share the same problems.
But I think Coryndon and Kristoffer said it better than I!

One quick question though before I stop beating this dead horse :).

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

Similarly, to some extent, many industrial design products are
much further along in their product lifecycles (compared to software
and web applications), so that functionality ceases to be a product
differentiator and form becomes much more important.

Thus one way of looking at this is just to say that the current state
of industrial design is just further along the curve than interaction
design.
It may not be in my lifetime (I'm an old fart), but is it impossible to
imagine a world where software and web applications are actually
usable? And choosing between spreadsheet programs is like
choosing between Ford and Toyota?

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/

Comments

21 Nov 2003 - 11:01am
CD Evans
2004

>There's another major difference in the practice of Interaction Design and
>Industrial Design that nobody's cited yet. For the most part, the
>practitioners of Industrial Design have the chops to build the products that
>they're designing, at least up to highly-evolved prototypes which are almost
>as realistic in their function as the final product.
>
>
>Cheers,
>EB

This is a problem with the tools we have, I think, and this leads to
the problem of too many similar designs. As you say, we do not
prototype very sophisticated systems, but we test in extreme. We need
flexible tools that allow for a 'workshop style' environment where
things can be crafted by hand. It seems we're currently working with
very inflexible technology to design very flexible technology.

CD Evans

21 Nov 2003 - 11:05am
Benjamin Bennett
2003

Although there is nothing new about what I'm about to say, I still think
it's worth bringing up ... basically I still think that traditional
Architecture has more in common with Interaction Design than Industrial
Design does. And this is from someone with a education in Product
Design. Elizabeth's comments about prototyping reminded me of previous
thoughts on the subject ... Architects design spaces for people to
interact both with and within, they have varying levels of knowledge of
related fields, such as Interior Design, Structural Engineering, etc...
They also produce models and prototype of the final product, but their
main deliverable is a set of design specs that someone else can take and
build the product from. Obviously I could go on, but again I'm guessing
that most people have had this discussion before and so I just wanted to
remind us all of it and potentially add a new layer to this discussion.

Cheers,
-B

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Bacon
Subject: [ID Discuss] RE: IxD & ID

There's another major difference in the practice of Interaction Design
and Industrial Design ...

21 Nov 2003 - 12:15pm
H Taylor
2004

Speaking as someone who spent 4 years in architecture school, I'd say you
make a good case for the analogy. The funny thing is, though, that I had
initially associated IxD more with ID. Perhaps the grass is always
greener...

-Hal

> Although there is nothing new about what I'm about to say, I still think
> it's worth bringing up ... basically I still think that traditional
> Architecture has more in common with Interaction Design than Industrial
> Design does. And this is from someone with a education in Product
> Design. Elizabeth's comments about prototyping reminded me of previous
> thoughts on the subject ... Architects design spaces for people to
> interact both with and within, they have varying levels of knowledge of
> related fields, such as Interior Design, Structural Engineering, etc...
> They also produce models and prototype of the final product, but their
> main deliverable is a set of design specs that someone else can take and
> build the product from. Obviously I could go on, but again I'm guessing
> that most people have had this discussion before and so I just wanted to
> remind us all of it and potentially add a new layer to this discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> -B
>

Syndicate content Get the feed