Should IxDA support a US National Design Policy?

18 Feb 2009 - 11:08am
5 years ago
22 replies
424 reads
Josh Seiden
2003

Folk,

Recently, a group of leaders from various US design organizations
came together to discuss the question of a US National design policy.
This summit meeting resulted in 10 design policy recommendations,
which can be found here:
http://www.designpolicy.org/usdp/policy-proposals.html

(The full report on the summit meeting can be found here:
http://www.designpolicy.org/usdp/summit-report.html)

After the summit meeting, the leaders of this initiative contacted
IxDA to ask for our participation and endorsement. In turn, the Board
has asked me to reach out to you--the community--to help us decide how
(or if) IxDA should participate.

The Board finds much to support in the 10 policy initiatives. In
particular, the spirit of optimistic patriotism is welcome, and we
certainly support the efforts of those who are motivated by that
spirit. That said, the 10 policy proposals include some items that
the Board strongly disagreed with as well. The Board finds itself
similarly split on whether or not the very idea of design
organizations partnering with government is a good idea.

What do you think? Should IxDA get involved? Are there specific
initiatives that YOU would like to support by working alongside your
IxDA peers? Are there alternative ways you would like to see IxDA
proceed?

For quick reference, here are the the 10 recommendations:

1. Formalize an American Design Council to partner with the U.S.
Government.

2. Set guidelines for legibility, literacy, and accessibility for
all government communications.

3. Target 2030 for carbon neutral buildings.

4. Create an Assistant Secretary for Design and Innovation
position within the Department of Commerce to promote design.

5. Expand national grants to support interdisciplinary community
design assistance programs based on human-centered design
principles.

6. Commission a report to measure and document design’s
contribution to the U.S. economy.

7. Revive the Presidential Design Awards to be held every year and
use triple bottom-line criteria (economic, social, and environmental
benefit) for evaluation.

8. Establish national grants for basic design research.

9. Modify the patent process to reflect the types of intellectual
property created by designers.

10. Encourage direct government investment in design innovation.

What do you think? How do you see IxDA's role relating to this?

Thanks,
Josh Seiden

Comments

18 Feb 2009 - 11:54am
Gabby Hon
2006

I'm in the 'absolutely not' column. The proposal is too airy-fairy
impractical with overtly political items ('carbon neutral', for
example) thrown in.

The United States is dealing with huge problems that would not have
been helped by 'design thinking'. And the last thing we need is
more levels of bureaucracy with random cabinet level positions.

#6 alone would cost millions in taxpayer dollars--and to what end?

The only item in the list worth supporting is #2, as I think we've
all been faced with impenetrable government forms that appeared to
have been written by an English-Jibberish-English retranslator.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

18 Feb 2009 - 12:04pm
Phillip Hunter
2006

Josh,

I think this is a matter of not whether but how and to what extent.
I had been thinking about something like this for Obama's Citizen's
Briefing Book, but that is over and this is better anyway.

I'm curious about which items on the list were disagreed with. The
problem I see with the list is that it pays attention to several
causes celebres (not that they're invalid) over some of the deeper,
non-glamorous issues. But as designers we should be used to that
starting point. :)

As to being tied to a government, I agree there are many issues to
think through, especially for international organizations. However,
there is much to learn from groups that have been in similar
quandaries, for example, faith-based groups over the past decade or
so. We know we have certain ideals and aims that we do not want to
compromise, but I believe there is a way to walk the path of "both"
and not "either/or".

My vote is to proceed and be wise about it as we go along.

Phillip

p.s. I did not get to meet you at the conference, but I enjoyed
hearing you on Jared's panel and had a great workshop with Liya and
Jeanine. Sounds like your team really enjoys their work.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

18 Feb 2009 - 12:14pm
Maurice
2009

KEEP GOVERNMENTS OUT OF OUR CREATIVE SPACE!!!

I'm a definate "NO"

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

18 Feb 2009 - 12:15pm
Mark Schraad
2006

This effort frustrates me. I really appreciate and applaud the effort that
went into it. But items 2 and 3, while admirable, really have no business
being on this list. They are not only political agendas but are highly
charged and likely to sink the entire effort. These two items need, and are
worthy of, their own platforms and there own initiatives. And while
designers can and should lead such efforts, these are not inherent issue
regarding design.

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Josh Seiden <joshseiden at gmail.com> wrote:

> Folk,
>
> Recently, a group of leaders from various US design organizations
> came together to discuss the question of a US National design policy.
> This summit meeting resulted in 10 design policy recommendations,
> which can be found here:
> http://www.designpolicy.org/usdp/policy-proposals.html
>
> (The full report on the summit meeting can be found here:
> http://www.designpolicy.org/usdp/summit-report.html)
>
> After the summit meeting, the leaders of this initiative contacted
> IxDA to ask for our participation and endorsement. In turn, the Board
> has asked me to reach out to you--the community--to help us decide how
> (or if) IxDA should participate.
>
> The Board finds much to support in the 10 policy initiatives. In
> particular, the spirit of optimistic patriotism is welcome, and we
> certainly support the efforts of those who are motivated by that
> spirit. That said, the 10 policy proposals include some items that
> the Board strongly disagreed with as well. The Board finds itself
> similarly split on whether or not the very idea of design
> organizations partnering with government is a good idea.
>
> What do you think? Should IxDA get involved? Are there specific
> initiatives that YOU would like to support by working alongside your
> IxDA peers? Are there alternative ways you would like to see IxDA
> proceed?
>
> For quick reference, here are the the 10 recommendations:
>
> 1. Formalize an American Design Council to partner with the U.S.
> Government.
>
> 2. Set guidelines for legibility, literacy, and accessibility for
> all government communications.
>
> 3. Target 2030 for carbon neutral buildings.
>
> 4. Create an Assistant Secretary for Design and Innovation
> position within the Department of Commerce to promote design.
>
> 5. Expand national grants to support interdisciplinary community
> design assistance programs based on human-centered design
> principles.
>
> 6. Commission a report to measure and document design's
> contribution to the U.S. economy.
>
> 7. Revive the Presidential Design Awards to be held every year and
> use triple bottom-line criteria (economic, social, and environmental
> benefit) for evaluation.
>
> 8. Establish national grants for basic design research.
>
> 9. Modify the patent process to reflect the types of intellectual
> property created by designers.
>
> 10. Encourage direct government investment in design innovation.
>
>
> What do you think? How do you see IxDA's role relating to this?
>
> Thanks,
> Josh Seiden
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

18 Feb 2009 - 12:42pm
SemanticWill
2007

I have said this before - on their blog site, in conversations with
DaveM, other places.

I think they are misguided bordering on clueless. It's one thing to
bring together a cabal of policy wonks, academics, and bureaucrats to
create a national design policy; it's another act of hubris to not
even ask for our input before they draft the darn thing and only after
we complain rather loudly about not being included in the discussion
or formulation, to seemingly act like they want our support or rubber
stamp which they will not get.

Most annoying is that the 1 policy decision/direction they could
actually take/recommend that would have a noticeable impact on design
in the US is to recommend the re-funding of art and design in all
public elementary schools across the country - short of that it's
thoroughly useless and some of their recommendations are about as
effective as pissing in the wind.
That's my 2 cents.

~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
http://blog.semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: semanticwill
twitter: semanticwill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Feb 18, 2009, at 12:15 PM, mark schraad wrote:

> This effort frustrates me. I really appreciate and applaud the
> effort that
> went into it. But items 2 and 3, while admirable, really have no
> business
> being on this list. They are not only political agendas but are highly
> charged and likely to sink the entire effort. These two items need,
> and are
> worthy of, their own platforms and there own initiatives. And while
> designers can and should lead such efforts, these are not inherent
> issue
> regarding design.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Josh Seiden <joshseiden at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Folk,
>>
>> Recently, a group of leaders from various US design organizations
>> came together to discuss the question of a US National design policy.
>> This summit meeting resulted in 10 design policy recommendations,
>> which can be found here:
>> http://www.designpolicy.org/usdp/policy-proposals.html
>>
>> (The full report on the summit meeting can be found here:
>> http://www.designpolicy.org/usdp/summit-report.html)
>>
>> After the summit meeting, the leaders of this initiative contacted
>> IxDA to ask for our participation and endorsement. In turn, the Board
>> has asked me to reach out to you--the community--to help us decide
>> how
>> (or if) IxDA should participate.
>>
>> The Board finds much to support in the 10 policy initiatives. In
>> particular, the spirit of optimistic patriotism is welcome, and we
>> certainly support the efforts of those who are motivated by that
>> spirit. That said, the 10 policy proposals include some items that
>> the Board strongly disagreed with as well. The Board finds itself
>> similarly split on whether or not the very idea of design
>> organizations partnering with government is a good idea.
>>
>> What do you think? Should IxDA get involved? Are there specific
>> initiatives that YOU would like to support by working alongside your
>> IxDA peers? Are there alternative ways you would like to see IxDA
>> proceed?
>>
>> For quick reference, here are the the 10 recommendations:
>>
>> 1. Formalize an American Design Council to partner with the U.S.
>> Government.
>>
>> 2. Set guidelines for legibility, literacy, and accessibility for
>> all government communications.
>>
>> 3. Target 2030 for carbon neutral buildings.
>>
>> 4. Create an Assistant Secretary for Design and Innovation
>> position within the Department of Commerce to promote design.
>>
>> 5. Expand national grants to support interdisciplinary community
>> design assistance programs based on human-centered design
>> principles.
>>
>> 6. Commission a report to measure and document design's
>> contribution to the U.S. economy.
>>
>> 7. Revive the Presidential Design Awards to be held every year and
>> use triple bottom-line criteria (economic, social, and environmental
>> benefit) for evaluation.
>>
>> 8. Establish national grants for basic design research.
>>
>> 9. Modify the patent process to reflect the types of intellectual
>> property created by designers.
>>
>> 10. Encourage direct government investment in design innovation.
>>
>>
>> What do you think? How do you see IxDA's role relating to this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Josh Seiden
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

18 Feb 2009 - 1:22pm
Angel Anderson
2010

I particularly like 8, 9, & 10 but I feel that overall, the list is a bit
lofty. Even if we gave the rubber stamp they want, what would that mean in a
practical sense for IxDA members? Probably not much. Also, how would we
reconcile such ties to the US government when we're supposed to be an
international association?
-Angel Anderson

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Will Evans <wkevans4 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have said this before - on their blog site, in conversations with DaveM,
> other places.
>
> I think they are misguided bordering on clueless. It's one thing to bring
> together a cabal of policy wonks, academics, and bureaucrats to create a
> national design policy; it's another act of hubris to not even ask for our
> input before they draft the darn thing and only after we complain rather
> loudly about not being included in the discussion or formulation, to
> seemingly act like they want our support or rubber stamp which they will not
> get.
>
> Most annoying is that the 1 policy decision/direction they could actually
> take/recommend that would have a noticeable impact on design in the US is to
> recommend the re-funding of art and design in all public elementary schools
> across the country - short of that it's thoroughly useless and some of their
> recommendations are about as effective as pissing in the wind.
> That's my 2 cents.
>
> ~ will
>
> "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> and what you innovate are design problems"
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Will Evans | User Experience Architect
> tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
> http://blog.semanticfoundry.com
> aim: semanticwill
> gtalk: semanticwill
> twitter: semanticwill
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2009, at 12:15 PM, mark schraad wrote:
>
> This effort frustrates me. I really appreciate and applaud the effort that
>> went into it. But items 2 and 3, while admirable, really have no business
>> being on this list. They are not only political agendas but are highly
>> charged and likely to sink the entire effort. These two items need, and
>> are
>> worthy of, their own platforms and there own initiatives. And while
>> designers can and should lead such efforts, these are not inherent issue
>> regarding design.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Josh Seiden <joshseiden at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Folk,
>>>
>>> Recently, a group of leaders from various US design organizations
>>> came together to discuss the question of a US National design policy.
>>> This summit meeting resulted in 10 design policy recommendations,
>>> which can be found here:
>>> http://www.designpolicy.org/usdp/policy-proposals.html
>>>
>>> (The full report on the summit meeting can be found here:
>>> http://www.designpolicy.org/usdp/summit-report.html)
>>>
>>> After the summit meeting, the leaders of this initiative contacted
>>> IxDA to ask for our participation and endorsement. In turn, the Board
>>> has asked me to reach out to you--the community--to help us decide how
>>> (or if) IxDA should participate.
>>>
>>> The Board finds much to support in the 10 policy initiatives. In
>>> particular, the spirit of optimistic patriotism is welcome, and we
>>> certainly support the efforts of those who are motivated by that
>>> spirit. That said, the 10 policy proposals include some items that
>>> the Board strongly disagreed with as well. The Board finds itself
>>> similarly split on whether or not the very idea of design
>>> organizations partnering with government is a good idea.
>>>
>>> What do you think? Should IxDA get involved? Are there specific
>>> initiatives that YOU would like to support by working alongside your
>>> IxDA peers? Are there alternative ways you would like to see IxDA
>>> proceed?
>>>
>>> For quick reference, here are the the 10 recommendations:
>>>
>>> 1. Formalize an American Design Council to partner with the U.S.
>>> Government.
>>>
>>> 2. Set guidelines for legibility, literacy, and accessibility for
>>> all government communications.
>>>
>>> 3. Target 2030 for carbon neutral buildings.
>>>
>>> 4. Create an Assistant Secretary for Design and Innovation
>>> position within the Department of Commerce to promote design.
>>>
>>> 5. Expand national grants to support interdisciplinary community
>>> design assistance programs based on human-centered design
>>> principles.
>>>
>>> 6. Commission a report to measure and document design's
>>> contribution to the U.S. economy.
>>>
>>> 7. Revive the Presidential Design Awards to be held every year and
>>> use triple bottom-line criteria (economic, social, and environmental
>>> benefit) for evaluation.
>>>
>>> 8. Establish national grants for basic design research.
>>>
>>> 9. Modify the patent process to reflect the types of intellectual
>>> property created by designers.
>>>
>>> 10. Encourage direct government investment in design innovation.
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you think? How do you see IxDA's role relating to this?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Josh Seiden
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

18 Feb 2009 - 1:50pm
Dave Malouf
2005

A few thoughts:
1) The total list is a draft and they are looking for feeback. Its a
sketch being evaluated. I have problems w/ the after party invite as
opposed to getting invited to the awards ceremony itself, but I can
move on from that.

2) Government in any professional space.
Whether a gov't is explicitly involved in a space or not it is
involved. You are just kidding yourself to a certain degree. When it
comes to design all I have to do is compare the US situation to those
of Europe and Asia where design has much more governmental support
than the US puts into it (definitely per capita). Various country
design councils do a great job of getting money for design education
(formal and informal). But just look at what Korea has been able to
do b/c of their unique government policies on design. It has
single-handily given a huge advantage to Korean product companies b/c
of the support they get for hiring and maintaining design leadership.

Design jobs are going to go overseas in droves over the next decade.
Getting gov't awareness to our issues will be helpful.

As to the whole "carbon neutral" thing. I think like what a few of
our keynotes at intearction09 preached, I think it is time to make a
stand as a designer. You are what you CHOOSE to design. This bit is
trying to put that face out front.

So to put it short (too late) and sweet (you decide) I support IxDA
figuring out SOME way to engage in what is going on with this
project/initiative.

-- dave

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

18 Feb 2009 - 1:20pm
Harlan Weber
2009

I agree with Philip for the most part, though I share Mark's split between
frustration and appreciation.

Although it's understandably a weird feeling to have government involvement
in what has purely been a creative space, I also feel there's a lot of
opportunity to do good here - There are a ton of government services that
could benefit from proper application of design thinking, for the good of
the country. As for being 'tied to the government', it doesn't seem like
there will be Men in Black peeking over your shoulder every time you fire up
Illustrator, at least from my reading :) It might be good to look at the way
the UK Design Council operates and examine the role it plays and the effect
it has on the design community there.

While flawed at the moment, I think it's certainly an effort worth pursuing,
with substantial input from the community. But that's the iterative design
process, right? Point #6 worries me substantially, however; I feel like it
would be a bit of a boondoggle at best, and a vehicle for manipulating the
flow of grants or other financial benefits at worst.

18 Feb 2009 - 2:54pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

On Feb 18, 2009, at 10:50 AM, dave malouf wrote:

> 1) The total list is a draft and they are looking for feeback. Its a
> sketch being evaluated. I have problems w/ the after party invite as
> opposed to getting invited to the awards ceremony itself, but I can
> move on from that.

"After party" invite?

Folks... IxD is not even a "legit" profession yet You're still arguing
and debating what the design curriculum is! Let's not get ahead of
ourselves, shall we? 8^)

> 2) Government in any professional space.

I think I'm in agreement with Dave on the larger point.

Further, maybe I'm reading the proposal wrong, but none of the points
brought up in it are about government interference in the design
sector per se, and all about making sure the government itself follows
good design practices and standard, recognizes it, supports it, and in
doing so, legitimizes it in the general population. As Dave pointed
out, just look to Europe or Asia to see how well it's worked out for
them. (The answer: Far better than for us here in the U.S.)

I'm not sure where some of the reactions on this list are coming with
regard that these proposals are about dictating design in any fashion
at the private sector level. How on earth can setting *standards* for
legibility and readability for government documents *produced* by
government workers be a bad thing? Are standards only for the W3C or
the IEEE and not for anyone else?

--
Andrei Herasimchuk

Chief Design Officer, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422

18 Feb 2009 - 4:06pm
j.scot
2008

Like Angel, I like 8, 9, and 10, and though I understand frustrations
others have expressed, I agree with Dave and Andrei about the overall
initiative. I therefore support engagement, focused on asserting our
collective informed opinion, and attempting to moderate misguided or
overly ambitious elements of it.

Assuming that nothing can happen unless the first item happens,
professional design organizations need to weigh in heavily on every
aspect of the design of said Council. Perhaps through initial
engagement, we might offer to submit a design for the organization
and its relationships (structure, roles, responsibilities,
authority)... a highly resolved vision representing insight from the
international design community and governments who have similar
initiatives.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

18 Feb 2009 - 4:22pm
Jack L. Moffett
2005

Certainly, it isn't perfect. However, I view it as a foot in the door.
This is the only venture in this direction I know of that seems to
have legs. I think it is worth getting behind, even if we don't agree
with everything on it.

Furthermore, let's pretend that it does have legs and actually
happens. If IxDA isn't involved in it, where does that leave us in
relation to the rest of the design community?

Another point of reference is the work of Richard Buchanan and Tony
Golsby-Smith with the Australian Tax Office, which started by looking
at a redesign of the tax forms but ended up redesigning the entire tax
system.

Andrei said;
> Folks... IxD is not even a "legit" profession yet You're still
> arguing and debating what the design curriculum is! Let's not get
> ahead of ourselves, shall we? 8^)

Okay, so IxDA is the new kid on the block as a professional
organization. However, considering the success of the first conference
(and the imminently successful second) and the extremely active
international membership, not to mention the caliber of professionals
in our membership, I think we deserve some street cred.

Best,
Jack

Jack L. Moffett
Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.459.0310 x219
http://www.inmedius.com

When I am working on a problem,
I never think about beauty.
I think only of how to solve the problem.

But when I have finished,
if the solution is not beautiful,
I know it is wrong.

- R. Buckminster Fuller

18 Feb 2009 - 4:28pm
Lisa
2007

The IxDA should absolutely participate in and support the US National
Design Policy.

The current draft proposal is attempting to shine a light on the
importance of Design and design in every day life. Why would IxDA not
want to help shape a national design policy? If the group decides
against participation, we will be permanently left out of the
conversation.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

18 Feb 2009 - 4:37pm
Caroline Jarrett
2007

>From Jack Moffett

<snip>
> Another point of reference is the work of
> Richard Buchanan and Tony Golsby-Smith
> with the Australian Tax Office, which
> started by looking at a redesign of
> the tax forms but ended up redesigning
> the entire tax system.
>

Jack, could you give me some references to this work? Due to my fascination
with forms in general and tax forms in particular, I'd love to find out more
about this claim, which I'd not heard about previously despite a few
contacts here and there with the Australian Taxation Office.

I tried a bit of Googling for it and came across this rather modest claim on
the 2nd Road web site (Tim Golsby-Smith's consulting firm). It talks about
reporting structures in the ATO and says:

"Senior management meet to consider these strategic reports. Their meetings
have become focused and efficient. And most of their key planning issues for
the coming year have emerged directly from these reports.

On an individual level, leaders feel empowered. The Deputy Commissioner
quoted above is delighted that he can now review the reports over a sandwich
in just fifteen minutes, and yet be fully equipped to participate in the
discussion".

While I'm greatly in favour of helping senior managers to feel empowered and
review management reports more quickly, I don't quite see that as a
'redesign of the entire tax system'.

So I'd be grateful for any pointers you can give me to the wider project.

Best
Caroline Jarrett

18 Feb 2009 - 5:40pm
Phillip Hunter
2006

I am no fan of big government, but let's face it that some very large
initiatives simply need some regulatory heft behind them. Perhaps
this is one and I believe it should be explored.

The comments about keeping government out of creative efforts seem
odd. Are we better or worse off for having the NEA and NAS here in
the US? And don't other countries have even more success pairing
creativity and government?

As many have pointed out, we have to be careful about how and in what
we get involved, but I will say again that being part of the
discussion is better than not. Let's enter while the door is open
rather than knock later and hear that the meeting is closed.

The most important thing we could work on as an organization is what
we would do with a place at the table.

ph

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

18 Feb 2009 - 5:57pm
Jack L. Moffett
2005

On Feb 18, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Caroline Jarrett wrote:

> Jack, could you give me some references to this work? Due to my
> fascination
> with forms in general and tax forms in particular, I'd love to find
> out more
> about this claim, which I'd not heard about previously despite a few
> contacts here and there with the Australian Taxation Office.

Certainly.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/desi.2008.24.1.55
http://design.case.edu/2002workshop/Positions/Preston.doc
http://powerofdesign.aiga.org/content.cfm/smith_cat

Google's fast. I got my previous post as one of my search results! :)

Best,
Jack

Jack L. Moffett
Interaction Designer
inmedius
412.459.0310 x219
http://www.inmedius.com

First, recognize that the ‘right’ requirements
are in principle unknowable by users, customers
and designers at the start.

Devise the design process, and the formal
agreement between designers and customers and users,
to be sensitive to what is learnt by any of the
parties as the design evolves.

- J.C. Jones

18 Feb 2009 - 6:01pm
Josh Seiden
2003

Thanks for all the input folks. Let me put a finer point on what
"participation" means.

Participation means that YOU feel motivated to work on one of these
10 initiatives. Do you? If so, how? Would you put a group of IxDA
members together to drive one of these initiatives forward? if not,
what would YOU be willing to do?

If you look at the detailed report of the summit, you will see that
many of the ideas that the group considered are ideas that we've
talk about as a group. Perhaps there are ideas in the booklet that
you feel passionately about and would like to drive?

Remember that IxDA is not AIGA. We have no paid membership. We have
no paid staff. We are an all volunteer army. And we have lots to work
on as it is.

So, in some ways, this is a question of priorities--of triage really.
What do WE want to work on together?

JS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

19 Feb 2009 - 6:12am
Caroline Jarrett
2007

Thanks very much, Jack. I don't know why Google didn't do it for me - but it
didn't.

The piece by the ex-Assistant Commissioner will be particularly useful for
me.

Best

Caroline

From: Jack Moffett [mailto:jackmoffett at mac.com]
Sent: 18 February 2009 22:57
To: Caroline Jarrett
Cc: 'IXDA list'
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Should IxDA support a US National Design Policy?

On Feb 18, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Caroline Jarrett wrote:

Jack, could you give me some references to this work? Due to my fascination
with forms in general and tax forms in particular, I'd love to find out more
about this claim, which I'd not heard about previously despite a few
contacts here and there with the Australian Taxation Office.

Certainly.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/desi.2008.24.1.55

<http://design.case.edu/2002workshop/Positions/Preston.doc>
http://design.case.edu/2002workshop/Positions/Preston.doc

http://powerofdesign.aiga.org/content.cfm/smith_cat

Google's fast. I got my previous post as one of my search results! :)

Best,

Jack

Jack L. Moffett

Interaction Designer

inmedius

412.459.0310 x219

http://www.inmedius.com

First, recognize that the 'right' requirements

are in principle unknowable by users, customers

and designers at the start.

Devise the design process, and the formal

agreement between designers and customers and users,

to be sensitive to what is learnt by any of the

parties as the design evolves.

- J.C. Jones

_____

This message has been comprehensively scanned for viruses, please visit
http://www.avg.power.net.uk/ for details.

19 Feb 2009 - 5:24pm
Steve Baty
2009

Josh,

I'd like to tie this back to the mission of the IxDA and highlight two of
the points from that statement:
*
Evangelism* - Promoting awareness of the discipline, craft, and value of
interaction design and design research among businesses, academia,
consumers, and colleagues

*Innovation* - Advancing the discipline of interaction design

On the surface of it at least it would seem that the US National Design
policy - and specifically the involvement of the IxDA as a professional
association in the formative and developmental stages of that policy - are
consistent with those two objectives. What better way to demonstrate the
relevance and importance of interaction design to a broader audience than to
become actively involved in such an initiative.

I recognise that the IxDA's membership will not benefit equally from
involvement in such a program. As an Australian member of the IxDA the
benefits would be much more indirect than they would for US members.
However, I recognise the leadership role the US plays in public policy on a
global stage; the influence of US on Australian government policy-making is
clear. Similarly, raising the profile of IxD as a discipline with the
ability to tackle "big problems" can only help practitioners in all parts of
the world.

So, with some call for caution with respect to the allocation of overall
resources of the IxDA, I would support our involvement.

Best Regards

Steve
2009/2/19 Josh Seiden <joshseiden at gmail.com>

> Folk,
>
> Recently, a group of leaders from various US design organizations
> came together to discuss the question of a US National design policy.
> This summit meeting resulted in 10 design policy recommendations,
> which can be found here:
> http://www.designpolicy.org/usdp/policy-proposals.html
>
> (The full report on the summit meeting can be found here:
> http://www.designpolicy.org/usdp/summit-report.html)
>
> After the summit meeting, the leaders of this initiative contacted
> IxDA to ask for our participation and endorsement. In turn, the Board
> has asked me to reach out to you--the community--to help us decide how
> (or if) IxDA should participate.
>
> The Board finds much to support in the 10 policy initiatives. In
> particular, the spirit of optimistic patriotism is welcome, and we
> certainly support the efforts of those who are motivated by that
> spirit. That said, the 10 policy proposals include some items that
> the Board strongly disagreed with as well. The Board finds itself
> similarly split on whether or not the very idea of design
> organizations partnering with government is a good idea.
>
> What do you think? Should IxDA get involved? Are there specific
> initiatives that YOU would like to support by working alongside your
> IxDA peers? Are there alternative ways you would like to see IxDA
> proceed?
>
> For quick reference, here are the the 10 recommendations:
>
> 1. Formalize an American Design Council to partner with the U.S.
> Government.
>
> 2. Set guidelines for legibility, literacy, and accessibility for
> all government communications.
>
> 3. Target 2030 for carbon neutral buildings.
>
> 4. Create an Assistant Secretary for Design and Innovation
> position within the Department of Commerce to promote design.
>
> 5. Expand national grants to support interdisciplinary community
> design assistance programs based on human-centered design
> principles.
>
> 6. Commission a report to measure and document design's
> contribution to the U.S. economy.
>
> 7. Revive the Presidential Design Awards to be held every year and
> use triple bottom-line criteria (economic, social, and environmental
> benefit) for evaluation.
>
> 8. Establish national grants for basic design research.
>
> 9. Modify the patent process to reflect the types of intellectual
> property created by designers.
>
> 10. Encourage direct government investment in design innovation.
>
>
> What do you think? How do you see IxDA's role relating to this?
>
> Thanks,
> Josh Seiden
>

--
Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E:
stevebaty at meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty

Blog: http://meld.com.au/blog
Contributo: Johnny Holland - johnnyholland.org
Contributor: UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com
UX Australia: 25-27 August, http://uxaustralia.com.au
UX Book Club: http://uxbookclub.org/ - Read, discuss, connect.

19 Feb 2009 - 7:35pm
Mary Specht
2009

To build on Gabby's comment, we could bite off a small piece of #2.
What if IxDA members "adopted" various government sites, and
reviewed their key interactions?

We'd give advice for making their (often byzantine) sites more
effective, both for end users and for organizations (in the form of
less time wasted on user confusion).

We could even hand them UX flows and other helpful documentation. But
it would be up to the government to make the changes.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

19 Feb 2009 - 7:36pm
Mary Specht
2009

To build on Gabby's comment, we could bite off a small piece of #2.
What if IxDA members "adopted" various government sites, and
reviewed their key interactions?

We'd give advice for making their (often byzantine) sites more
effective, both for end users and for organizations (in the form of
less time wasted on user confusion).

We could even hand them UX flows and other helpful documentation. But
it would be up to the government to make the changes.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

20 Feb 2009 - 8:05am
Janna Cameron
2004

How is #2 different than section 508?
http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=11

If you skim through, keep in mind that this standard is undergoing a
refresh.

I don't think there's a huge need to establish new standards for
accessibility outside of current efforts.

Janna

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Mary
Specht
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:37 PM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Should IxDA support a US National Design Policy?

To build on Gabby's comment, we could bite off a small piece of #2.
What if IxDA members "adopted" various government sites, and
reviewed their key interactions?

We'd give advice for making their (often byzantine) sites more
effective, both for end users and for organizations (in the form of
less time wasted on user confusion).

We could even hand them UX flows and other helpful documentation. But
it would be up to the government to make the changes.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

20 Feb 2009 - 11:56am
Phillip Hunter
2006

Josh,

To respond to your more specific question, I am willing to be part of
a mixed or all IxDA group working on a specific issue and am most
interested in items 5, 8, and 10 in the current top priorities list.

Phillip

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=38901

Syndicate content Get the feed