Visual design, industrial design, interaction design ... (was re: Interesting Flash Interface)

31 Oct 2004 - 7:29am
9 years ago
1 reply
1073 reads
Dave Malouf
2005

> > ***[Pabini] We've jumped from visual design to industrial
> design here.
>
> And? People respond to how the iPod *looks* before they
> respond to how it works.

Pabini's statement strikes me as interesting and so is Andrei's response.
To me visual design and industrial design are two sides of the same coin. 1
exists in the 2d space and the other exists on top of 3d physical forms. The
coin itself is caled "presentation".

The reason why I point this is is that as practitioners of interaction
design we need to be in partnership either personally or through
collaboration with those who have expertise in "presentation". Presentation
can be graphic design, information design, industrial design, writing,
broadcast design, etc. Regardless of the discipline though it is the art of
presentation.

Pabini said that the visual design needs to communicate purpose and function
(paraphrasing), and add to the overall usability of the product. Andrei's
retort was saying that the emotional response is also part of the overall
presentation.

I think that Andrei might have been overstating his case a bit. I don't
think he was saying that presentation is not supposed to communicate, but
rather it needs to communicate various things. I've come up with 3:
purpose/function, overal emotion, and the brand (usually the first 2 lead to
the 2nd, but it needs to be part of the strategic boundaries of the
presentation).

I also think that the emotional and the brand are part of the behavioral
design as well. We cannot and should not relegate ourselves to just form =
function. I think in our field we are pulled way too much by that, mainly
b/c of the engineering influences, but form != function, (in our case
"behavior != function") but that function informs/impacts form.

To me this is the key element that seems to be missing from the interaction
design community. The other side of "Design" is our creativity, which to me
is more than just our ability to ideate through a design process, but also
is our creativity of aesthetics.

What are the aesthetics of behavior? I believe we have been "forced" to
concentrate on the easy/hard dichotomy without thought to the whole universe
of other attributes of behavior.

What do people think?

-- dave

Comments

31 Oct 2004 - 8:31pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Oct 31, 2004, at 4:29 AM, David Heller wrote:

> I think that Andrei might have been overstating his case a bit.

Me? Never. 8^P

> I don't think he was saying that presentation is not supposed to
> communicate, but
> rather it needs to communicate various things. I've come up with 3:
> purpose/function, overal emotion, and the brand (usually the first 2
> lead to
> the 2nd, but it needs to be part of the strategic boundaries of the
> presentation).

This seems fair enough.

> I also think that the emotional and the brand are part of the
> behavioral
> design as well. We cannot and should not relegate ourselves to just
> form =
> function. I think in our field we are pulled way too much by that,
> mainly
> b/c of the engineering influences, but form != function, (in our case
> "behavior != function") but that function informs/impacts form.

Again, to quote one of my favorite designers:

"The conflict between design and technology, like the conflict between
form and content, is not an either/or problem, it is one of synthesis."
-- Paul Rand

Andrei

Syndicate content Get the feed