JJG's IA Summit 2009 Keynote

27 Mar 2009 - 3:17pm
5 years ago
55 replies
11143 reads
Nasir Barday
2006

The longer that thread gets, the crankier I get, so I'm starting a new one
specifically to talk about Jesse James Garrett's talk at the IA Summit last
weekend. It's what he wanted us to do, anyway.

Todd wrote

> If you truly believe that, then I don't understand how you could have a
> million problems with JJG's closing keynote. I'm still interested to know a
> few.
>

JJG had me for the majority of his keynote, but a few points lost me:

-) He alluded to some sort of war between the IA and IxD communities, and
that interaction designers were eating IA's lunch. Is this really a zero-sum
game? Talk like this only serves to drive our peeps further apart. I
expected better from a respected thought leader and someone that's been
around a while.

-) Instead of defining User Experience Design as a term to umbrella our
*practices*, he focused on umbrella-ing the *people*. A step backard if
we're trying to get away from defining job titles!

-) Even further, he proposed that UX is and always will be the only umbrella
for what each of us does, when in fact there are other ways IA and IxD
intersect with the rest of the design world; we're more than web, desktop,
and mobile designers. It's what we do now, but there are so many
non-computing problems coming down the pike that we'll be involved with that
won't fit the UX mold.

-) I LOVED the fact that he said that our practices will make the next leap
when a someone creates a truly design-led company that "makes stuff," that
kicks everyone's asses and leaves them playing catch up. By the way, that
person will not wear ANY of our titles, which made his focus on the "User
Experience Designer" title even more disappointing to me. But I have to
reiterate that I LOVE the concept of a designer creating an entity that
comes out of left field and challenges the way that people outside of our
community think. Outside of our community, people!

Thought I'd end on a positive note. It's Friday, after all ...

- Nasir

Comments

27 Mar 2009 - 3:24pm
Jack L. Moffett
2005

On Mar 27, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Nasir Barday wrote:

> I LOVED the fact that he said that our practices will make the next
> leap
> when a someone creates a truly design-led company that "makes
> stuff," that
> kicks everyone's asses and leaves them playing catch up.

And I suppose there is some reason that Apple doesn't count?

Best,
Jack

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

Good designers relentlessly generate lots of ideas
and open-mindedly consider alternative solutions.
At no time are good designers frightened to entertain
a crazy, competing, or uncomfortable idea.

- Karl Ulrich

27 Mar 2009 - 3:53pm
Todd Warfel
2003

Thanks for adding some clarification. I can't speak for JJG, only what
I took away from his talk. More below...

On Mar 27, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Nasir Barday wrote:

> -) He alluded to some sort of war between the IA and IxD
> communities, and that interaction designers were eating IA's lunch.
> Is this really a zero-sum game? Talk like this only serves to drive
> our peeps further apart. I expected better from a respected thought
> leader and someone that's been around a while.

I think that was his point: it's not a zero sum game. What I took away
from what JJG said was that all this bickering is non-sense. That
rather than trying to divide the groups into IAs and IxDs, really,
we're all UXDs. Each of us does both, just in different percentages.

> -) Instead of defining User Experience Design as a term to umbrella
> our *practices*, he focused on umbrella-ing the *people*. A step
> backard if we're trying to get away from defining job titles!

I didn't take it that way. I took it first and foremost, as a call for
unification and to move forward. I took it as a call to leave all the
old baggage behind and band together in the practice of UX.
Incidentally, if you're practicing IA or IxD, then I don't see it as a
stretch to call yourself one of those. Personally, I refer to myself
as a Designer. But many of the people in our field refer to themselves
as IAs or IxDs. I don't see how referring to yourself as a UX Designer
is a bad thing.

I do think that trying to get away from defining job titles is a
meaningless and never ending cycle. People will always have titles.
That's just life.

> -) Even further, he proposed that UX is and always will be the only
> umbrella for what each of us does, when in fact there are other ways
> IA and IxD intersect with the rest of the design world; we're more
> than web, desktop, and mobile designers. It's what we do now, but
> there are so many non-computing problems coming down the pike that
> we'll be involved with that won't fit the UX mold.

I didn't see this at all. I never once heard him say that UX is and
always will be the ONLY umbrella for what each of us does. And UX
stretches far greater than web, mobile and desktop. It reaches into
physical spaces, theme parks (just ask Disney), motor vehicles. It
really is all encompassing. How is that a negative?

> -) I LOVED the fact that he said that our practices will make the
> next leap when a someone creates a truly design-led company that
> "makes stuff," that kicks everyone's asses and leaves them playing
> catch up. By the way, that person will not wear ANY of our titles,
> which made his focus on the "User Experience Designer" title even
> more disappointing to me.

You're right. They'll probably be the Chief of UX.

Incidentally, I asked a few people who were first timers at the
conference what they thought of JJGs talk. They didn't have a clue
what 90% of what he was saying meant, which was refreshing to me,
because the part they didn't get nor understand what all the bad
blooded history he was referring to early on. I applaud his candor and
frankness with that.

Thanks again for sharing your perspectives, Nasir. While you and I may
have taken different things away from JJGs message, at the end of the
day I know we're on the same path: designing great stuff!

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter: zakiwarfel
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

27 Mar 2009 - 3:50pm
Dru
2009

Funny. As I read that, I was thinking, "what about Apple". I wish
there were more Apple-think companies and Apple-minded individuals.
And for the record, I am not a zealot about Apple, Macs, iPhone,
iPod, iAnything but I do appreciate clean design, user satisfaction,
and fun.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

27 Mar 2009 - 4:23pm
Jack L. Moffett
2005

On Mar 27, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Nasir Barday wrote:

> Apple is secretive about their process and allows the general public
> to believe that their success hinges on "looking sleek and cool,"
> having a brand built solely around being hip, and being great
> marketers. While WE recognize that design furthers Apple's success,
> they do a poor job of telling people about it, preferring to lock it
> up as their mysterious "secret sauce." This does a disservice to the
> world, which fills its landfills from failed attempts at emulating it.

I see what you're saying. Recently, though, I think it is starting to
seep out. We've seen some videos during keynotes explaining why
something new, such as the unibody MacBooks, is a better design. The
iPhone commercials have focused on the UI. There have been a few
articles that have provided some insight into their design process,
and Jonathan Ive is one of the designers featured in Objectified.
Hopefully this trend will continue. I do believe that Apple is one of
a few companies (Target, Oxo, Dyson) that have been raising awareness
of good design among the populace.

Best,
Jack

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

Charles Eames was asked the question,
"What are the boundaries of design?"

He answered,

"What are the boundaries of problems?"

- Charles Eames

27 Mar 2009 - 5:11pm
Mark Schraad
2006

I think we all (on this board) wish there were companies that
realized the importance of design and leveraged design as a strategic
asset.

On Mar 27, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Dru wrote:

> Funny. As I read that, I was thinking, "what about Apple". I wish
> there were more Apple-think companies and Apple-minded individuals.
> And for the record, I am not a zealot about Apple, Macs, iPhone,
> iPod, iAnything but I do appreciate clean design, user satisfaction,
> and fun.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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

27 Mar 2009 - 5:20pm
Jack L. Moffett
2005

Nasir accidentally forgot to reply to the list. I've got your back. ;)

> I've already overblown my personal quota for IxDA list time, and I
> still have things to get out the door for today, but quickly:
>
> Todd, thanks for taking that on. We do agree on most things, and
> whatever's left to disagree on, well, we'll hash it out next time
> the universe aligns our presences in the same space :-). I found the
> same sentiment among IA Summit peeps; no one really knew what Eric
> Reiss's House Divided talk was about, let alone why they should have
> to spend their registration fee on that session when there were
> several other good ones to go to (even Eric made no bones about
> that). Which, as a naive ambassador attendee, made me happy, because
> nothing makes me more cranky than petty battles.
>
> As for the Apple thing, mirroring Twitter sentiments, I do hope we
> focus on more than the cult of Mac; that was my whole motivation to
> pose the question in the first place. The only focus on design I've
> seen so far focuses on the end product, the result of a good
> process-- the problem with simply evangelizing the end product is
> people still think the process is as easy as copying those slim
> lines, the sleek transitions, without learning about how to make the
> right design decisions.
>
> And to quote Johnathan Knoll (Twitter: @Yoni): "We need a language
> of UX, not a definition of it."
>
> Amen.
>
> - Nasir
> Twitter: @nbarday

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

Design is like California.
No one is born there.

-Dick Buchanan

27 Mar 2009 - 9:29pm
Richard Dalton
2008

My main takeaway from JJG's talk was that we could all be so much
more effective, both internally and externally if we rallied together
rather than going our separate ways.

To be quite honest I think there's more usage and grass roots
support for UX than the vocal minority in either organization thinks.
Take for example the job postings on the IxDA list - 38 in all at the
moment, here's the breakdown of terms used to describe them:

UX: 11
IxD: 9
Other: 9
UI: 8
IA: 1

I suspect we'd see the same if we looked at the IAI board. I also
just looked through the IxDA and IAI discussion archives and quite
honestly you could almost mix up the message headers and not know
which messages came from which list! There is *so much* overlap - I
just can't believe there is more benefit in the separation than
we'd gain from all these smart people working together.

- Richard

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

28 Mar 2009 - 5:20am
milan
2005

Just a funny thought: the situation could be expressed like this

- Common history, shared values, cultural overlap,
- yet different backgrounds, views, specialities, languages,
- multiple established structures and links between them (->confusion)
- common goals but difficulties to clearly express them
- a need to unite to face others on the same level
- fear of chaos, bureaucracy, loose of identity,
- powerful elements seeking to further integrate or separate

I like to call this a classic "European Union Problem" :)
Not an easy one though.

milan

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 19:29 +0000, Richard Dalton wrote:
> My main takeaway from JJG's talk was that we could all be so much
> more effective, both internally and externally if we rallied together
> rather than going our separate ways.

--
milan guenther * interaction design
||| | | |||| || |||||||| | || | ||

+33 6 67 11 13 83 * www.guenther.cx

28 Mar 2009 - 7:42am
Dave Malouf
2005

Richard, with all due respect,
There is nothing new now from before and while you took a snapshot
and while your own emotions are at play, your analysis of IxDA is
thin at best.

The differences culturally between the orgs is HUGE, IMHO. and if you
want to talk overlap, the greatest overlap statistically is NOT with
IAI but with CHI-WEB in terms of other membership then IAI. But what
makes IxDA not IAI is not the overlap, but where it doesn't overlap.
That permeates throughout the organization's structure, and yes the
discussion.

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

28 Mar 2009 - 9:25am
Richard Dalton
2008

I love posts that start with "with all due respect", so ...

Dave, with all due respect,
I don't understand what you're talking about. What do you mean
'nothing new now from before' and 'took a snapshot'?

The IxDA Manifesto is: "We believe that the human condition is
increasingly challenged by poor experiences. IxDA intends to improve
the human condition by advancing the discipline of Interaction
Design."

You could just as easily replace IxDA with IAI and "Interaction
Design" with "Information Architecture". The point is that both
orgs share the same fundamental belief - "Experiences are poor and
we want to improve them".

IMHO that's enough of a shared connection to work more closely
together.

- Richard

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

28 Mar 2009 - 10:09am
milan
2005

Hey Dave,

> The differences culturally between the orgs is HUGE, IMHO. and if you
> want to talk overlap, the greatest overlap statistically is NOT with
> IAI but with CHI-WEB in terms of other membership then IAI. But what
> makes IxDA not IAI is not the overlap, but where it doesn't overlap.
> That permeates throughout the organization's structure, and yes the
> discussion.

Ok, so what is the difference? Where is the not-overlap, the totally
different culture? Are we really talking about Painters vs. Sculpturors,
or about problems of naming and organizations? I can't make out a big
difference in topics on the iai-members list compared to this list,
maybe sometimes someone writes "Taxonomy", and there is less traffic.

To me, the difference is
* IAI: Paid, well organized, services such as scholarships
* IxDA: Free=open, great discussion, great local groups

It would be great when IAI opens its mailing list to everyone, and if
IxDA sets up a formal structure with paid membership, scholarships etc.
- then we really have everything two times, and each org will be able to
strongly evangalize its very special contribution to products &
services, which is not at all covered by the other. (Please turn on your
sarcasm detector).

Here http://www.ixda.org/search.php?tag=joel we talked about a designer
being capable of envisioning the whole UX, and that is also what this is
about: less deliverable & method, less I'm information and you're
interaction, more outcome: good UXs.

Milan

--
milan guenther * interaction design
||| | | |||| || |||||||| | || | ||

+33 6 67 11 13 83 * www.guenther.cx

28 Mar 2009 - 10:22am
Janna DeVylder
2006

Richard, the Boards from both IAI and IxDA are in communication. Whenever I
have had contact with IAI Board Members, there is no sense of animosity.
There is no sense of competition. We know that we have people whose
interests overlap and they play into each organization. I look forward to
finding new ways to work together moving forward, particularly where we
share common goals. Let's bring the energy together...we already have people
who have affinity to both organizations working on IxDA initiatives and IAI
initiatives. This goes beyond the IAI and IxDA as well. We have also had
contact with the AIGA as well. We have connections to ACM. But our org
models are different, even if at the end of the day all organizations want
to ensure that the products, systems and services we design help improve the
human condition (or at least not harm it).

The conversations over the last week have conflated many issues. Job
titles. Organizational reach. Discipline definition. Conference breadth and
depth. Personal Identity. No doubt these issues intersect, but one does
not necessarily answer the other. Getting everyone to call themselves the
same title does not make it happen in the institutions and businesses that
hire us. Putting all of us under one organizational umbrella does not
clarify the discipline questions. Having one conference does not make us
the same. The question we need to ask ourselves is if in creating a big
megastore of an answer would we be losing the very essence of what makes
each of these variations appealing to people? We have to consider the
culture, the approach...

IxDA's mission is to advance the discipline of Interaction Design by
providing the community platforms on which to gather to share and discuss
the topics surrounding IxD. That platform could be the conference. It could
be local groups. It's this discussion list. IxDA is not about coming to you
and dictating one final answer. It's about the conversation. Saying there
is an absolute end to the definition is equating this to some kind of
scientific truth. It will never be that. We share a core of interest. You
bring different facets of experience and worldview to your work. You are a
member if you say you are, there is no financial barrier. It's your job to
do the defining for both yourself and in concert with the community if you
choose. It's our job to give you the platforms to come together and spread
the word.

We have several initiatives going on that are addressing outreach and
awareness, both within our communities of practice and out. If you're
interested in being involved, contact me off list. There is a lot of good
work to be done, regardless of where or with whom you do it. And indeed, at
the end of the day it's about doing good work.

Janna DeVylder
President, IxDA

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Richard Dalton <richard at mauvyrusset.com>wrote:

>
>
> The IxDA Manifesto is: "We believe that the human condition is
> increasingly challenged by poor experiences. IxDA intends to improve
> the human condition by advancing the discipline of Interaction
> Design."
>
> You could just as easily replace IxDA with IAI and "Interaction
> Design" with "Information Architecture". The point is that both
> orgs share the same fundamental belief - "Experiences are poor and
> we want to improve them".
>
> IMHO that's enough of a shared connection to work more closely
> together.
>
> - Richard
>
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

28 Mar 2009 - 10:42am
Richard Dalton
2008

Janna, In order for the organizations to work closely together, they
need to find common ground. What is that common ground?

- Richard

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

28 Mar 2009 - 10:59am
Dan Saffer
2003

On Mar 28, 2009, at 8:09 AM, Milan Guenther wrote:

> I can't make out a big
> difference in topics on the iai-members list compared to this list,
> maybe sometimes someone writes "Taxonomy", and there is less traffic.

Ask yourself: which mailing lists focus on their discipline? On the
IxDA list, the topics may occasionally be stupid and redundant, but at
least for the most part they are focused on interaction design
specific issues. On SIG-IA and IAI, thanks to the legacy of so-called
"Big IA" (aka a land grab for all of UX), you'd be hard pressed to
tell what the core topic is.

One could see this, and the swarm of IAs now wanting to be called UX
Designers, as an unspoken admission that the discipline of information
architecture is pretty limited in practice. That even the most IA of
IAs with library science degrees who work on large web structures
probably only spend a small percent of their time doing "information
architecture" (the organization and structuring of information systems).

Flame on,

Dan

28 Mar 2009 - 11:49am
Dave Malouf
2005

[Thanx Dan for that good analysis. I just can't resist to adding what
I wrote before I read it.]

IAI focus is information and on the web
IxDA focus is behavior and across all mediums

IAI is a closed memberbased organization
IxDA is an open organization
(I think there are more issues to this than just the ones you
mentioned) AND there is nothing stopping "scholarships" within an
open organization. Hell! we've done it already in IxDA with
volunteers getting free passes and sometimes even travel expenses to
the conference.

IAI is NOT. And I repeat this NOT rooted in design.
IxDA is very squarely rooted as a design discipline.

Here's a nice ironic thing ...
IAI has not committed to participating in UXNet
IxDA has from its very 1st day.

So in my mind it is a painter vs. a sculptor thing. For some they
will move fluidly between the 2, but for others they will focus on
single mastery. There will always be a place for it.

If the IxDA is not working for you, I suggest you build something
that make sense for you. Seriously, that's not a bad thing. Maybe
the leadership of the IxDA will see that as a model that THEY can
follow. "Build it and they will come".

1) Stop asking permission
2) Start doing
3) Respect differences instead of trying to minimize them
4) Look for avenues of cooperation that do not mean unification
5) Overlap is not the same thing as redundancy
6) I think people seeing an overlap in membership is actually not
accurrate. Looking at the a few stats:
a) Overlapping memberships show that IAI is not even more than 50% of
IxDA membership
b) Conference attendance at IxDA was NOT more than 50% of IAI
membership. Many could care less about IA. Many could care less
about the web.
7) acknowledge that a lot of this is centered in practice and BOTH
organizations are supposedly about the disciplines and NOT practice.
8) If you feel torn, don't presume others do. I have spoken to many
IxDA members who feel that IAI just doesn't fit them. I have spoken
to fewer IAI. But I have heard some say that IxDA doesn't fit them
either. (less so admitedly).

I've been here since the beginning I would say (of IAI and IxDA).
I've been at the center of dialogs with ALL the big UX Orgs (which
brings up the thought why is this about IAI and IxDA; where's CHI
and UPA?). UPA is especially relevant as they already think of
themselves in their mission and leadership as a UX organization.
Maybe there's your answer!

Conjecture re IAI (that will get me in trouble):
I see that IAI has a problem. NOT IxDA or that UX is some sort of
solution. IAI has not created a vibrant home for all its members and
its membership model increases the tension. Maybe this isn't about
IxDA and unification, but more about the growing irrelevance of IA to
the real practice of web design/architecture professionals. That
isn't to say that IA is not a piece, but it is growingly a smaller
part of the focus of most solutions people are working on today.
Lastly, You did it! IA is now so well understood and its patterns so
well defined that doing that aspect of the work is just not as
difficult as other aspects. THAT's a success metrics if you ask me
not a bad thing. Last negative thing on IA. Maybe IAs grounding as a
discipline focused on deliverables has caught up to itself, and like
UPAs goal of moving beyond utility and efficiency hasn't worked, IAI
has not been able to move beyond deliverables and categorization. So
folks who spilled blood and sweat building IAI (admirable and
important) have a vibrant community set up around something that
doesn't require it. That doesn't mean that it requires a merger, or
even a merger is in someone else's best interest.

-- dave

ps. to @richard of course there is common ground and I think those
are easy to articulate mostly around user/human/people-centeredness.
What more do you need?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

28 Mar 2009 - 12:25pm
milan
2005

Hey Dave, Dan,

I see your points, I think. But the issues that now result in the
petition and discussion persist: it is difficult to face others (really
others, not IAs or even UPAs, but DMIs, AIGAs, ACM (in general) and
EICTA) when there are so many groups, titles etc. floating around.

So why centers the discussion on IAI? Because IAs are defining
interactive systems just as interaction designers do, at least the Big
practitioners. In UPA, you have many usability engineers who center on
audit and validation, but IAs, just as IxDs, specialise in concept and
definition.
Even if there are different roots, design is not the only way to solve
UX problems, and not the solution to all problems - even if as a trained
designer, I would like to think that way :)

So nevertheless, Big IA, Small IA, IxD, UID, when talking to others (as
mentioned above), UX is the way to go. We need that clarification. It's
not about IA vs. IxD inside the UX community, at least it shouldn't be!
We need to raise awareness against others, not limit the dialogue to
ourselves, our conferences and our communities. I didn't know about
UXNet, maybe there the beginning of that development already is.

How many people working in the digital spheres never heard of UX?
Let's change THAT!

milan
--
milan guenther * interaction design
||| | | |||| || |||||||| | || | ||

+33 6 67 11 13 83 * www.guenther.cx

28 Mar 2009 - 12:46pm
Dave Malouf
2005

So?
Aren't we already talking at WebVisions, and WebDirections? Isn't
there a big UX component at Agile2009?
I have spoken about UX and IxD at IDSA and others at AIGA.

There is nothing new under the sun here.

And it just sounds like now what you are talking about is appropriate
messaging to specific audiences. Which is like DUH!

but a unified organization isn't required for this. Just smart
people speaking and evangelizing.

If you are saying that our outward message has to be unified, then I
ain't buyin' that one for one minute. UX for example as a concept
has little meaning inside of ID conversations. While IxD and IA as
separate disciplines hold a lot more water. UX is and always has been
a marketing tool. but for specific engineering markets for the most
part. So it works there, but not everywhere which is why it is not
strategic to make a single organization centered around it.

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

28 Mar 2009 - 1:26pm
Richard Dalton
2008

Ah Dan, Dave, thank you for those pointed remarks about the
insignificance of IA, now lets get back to trying to find our common
ground shall we?

Dave - you said "of course there is common ground and I think those
are easy to articulate mostly around
user/human/people-centeredness". So please - articulate them ... I
thought the fundamental thing was in your manifesto, namely
"experiences suck and we want to create better ones", I keep
hearing you say that's not the shared ground - without saying what
is!

- Richard

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

28 Mar 2009 - 6:31pm
Dave Malouf
2005

The common ground is research and a value system that researching
users (not just markets and technology) is an important step in
designing solutions.

that statement about "experiences suck & we want to create better
ones" is implicit in IxDA, but IxDA does not pretend that IxD is the
sole arbiter of experience (if there is such a thing; so I'll stick
w/ solutions), and has always said that IxD as a discipline is but a
piece. There are many different types of practices that use IxD as
part of their work and other disciplines that make up the total tool
chest depending on what type of solution is being conceived.

If that doesn't answer your questions (stuff I"ve said well maybe 1
Billion times in the last 5 years) then I've got nuthin'.

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

29 Mar 2009 - 9:54am
Mark Schraad
2006

I fInally got to read Jesse's talk in its entirety. This is
brilliant. This is how leaders speak. It spanks and critiques... but
it presents vision, and challenge. And while it is very frank about
short comings and under utilized opportunities... it open minded,
humble, and optimistic. Reading this was a refreshing break from so
much of the close minded, absolutist, agenda filled dogma that often
spews from these two communities.

I have no idea of Jesse skills as an orator, but I can't help imagine
leaving this conference at once challenged and motivated.

Mark

29 Mar 2009 - 11:56am
Richard Dalton
2008

Mark, it was how a leader speaks, it was *brilliant*, it was *thought
provoking*, it was *inspiring*. It made me (and many others I think)
finally feel like we're all part of something bigger. It made me
(and others) start to realize the potential if we all worked
together.

I wanted to try and keep that going post conference - it would have
been oh so easy to just drift back into everyday work life - hence my
fumbling attempts to provoke an ongoing conversation and movement in
itsjustux.org.

I hear about the IAI and IxDA boards working together and sponsoring
each others conferences, which is great - I wonder though what else
*we* (the memberships) can do.

For example - I don't think having two discussion lists to discuss
essentially identical, or at the least very similar, things is
useful. I don't buy Dan's assertion that the IxDA list is mainly
about IxDA - so I did a little analysis on the July messages (I
picked July because it had a lot of messages - 196 in total), here is
the breakdown:

Job 53
Event 38
Interfaces 23
Other 11
Usability 8
Prototyping 7
Learning 6
Book 5
Process 5
Research 5
UX 5
IA 4
Design 3
New Product 3
Search 3
CMS 2
Errors 2
Form Design 2
Accessibility 1
Article 1
Documentation 1
Eye Tracking 1
Interviewing 1
Labels 1
Legal 1
Local 1
Org Charts 1
Persuasion 1
Roles 1

Of all of those categories the 23 out of 196 about Interface issue
were the ones you could probably point to and say "they're mostly
IxDA" - but even they're not exclusively about IxDA issues and
they're only a small percentage of the traffic - much of which was
probably also cross posted to the IAI list!

I'm not trying to devalue or point fingers - i'm just trying to
highlight the overlap here!

- Richard

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

29 Mar 2009 - 12:54pm
Dave Malouf
2005

On combining the lists:

Ok, this is silly beyond belief. And I can't believe I'm going to
give the IA lecture here.

Membership to a list is metadata. it is a filtering system. There is
nothing preventing you from opening your filter wider and saying I
want all the messages. It's just virtual.

Now 1 could say that when Conan is done we'll have other mechanism
to achieve that filtering system (tag as IA, research, IxD, etc.) but
there is one type of filter that *I* want to maintain and that is
people.

I feel like you haven't been listening to me Richard. I have said
this 5 times in this thread. IAI and IxDA does not have as high a
percentage of overlap as you think in the people department.

It isn't about "devaluing" as much as it is about "respect".

Maybe I take this a tad personally b/c of how much work I brought
here, but I could imagine others feeling like me. Imagine 5 years
ago, or 8 years ago and someone walked into the IA Summit, or into an
IAI Board meeting and claim that your org, your community and your
efforts should be ended. Just think about this as a design problem.
Even if you are right (and hell, considering how many times i've
been wrong, you probably are), is this REALLY the way to elicit
transformation, but entering someone's home and saying, "change
now" ... And oh! we have a petition and everything.

There's a reason why things are not "transparent" and why things
move slowly. Join UXNet, put your energy there if that maps more to
your goals and get in the trenches. I think you will find a very
messy reality with a challenging design problem. one I decided I have
no energy or passion for, as it no longer maps for me. But if it does
for you, at least have enough respect and comportment to the due
diligence and creative thinking and relationship management that it
will take to even begin to move things forward.

If that sounds overly complex and bureaucratic to you, well b/c it
is. Reasons #1 I gave up on UXNet. (which is why I think they've
taken a different tact, though I'm not looped in any longer).

- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

29 Mar 2009 - 12:58pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Mark & Richard,

much of the content of the talk was spot on.

he lost me at his mis-information about what went down between IAS
and IxDA this year. He mis-represented IxDA completely and demonized
the organization totally unnecessarily. His point was clear w/o doing
that, and he lost my respect for not doing the truly respectful and
professional thing of either staying out of it, providing both points
of view, or finding out the truth.

It actually demonstrated for me clearly that JJG is too biased by his
background of the IA community first (he's done nothing to engage
this community, unlike Peter M., his partner), which is really my
main point when speaking to Richard in this thread.

- -dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

29 Mar 2009 - 1:29pm
Richard Dalton
2008

Dave, you're taking this very personally and emotionally (something
you accused me of doing!). None of this has been directed at you and
at no time did I "walk in and claim the IxDA should be ended".

You want to keep the filter of people? Does that mean if all of the
IAI members just joined IxDA you wouldn't like it anymore? Because
that's one solution.

But listen, perhaps you are right, perhaps the itsjustux.org petition
was hasty or heavy handed, it wasn't intended to be an organization
killer, it was just intended to rally grass roots support for an
alignment on UX - however that alignment manifested itself in orgs,
lists and conferences. If it was perceived otherwise then the fault
is mine, put it down to over exuberance driven by a desire for Change
(how very political of me ;-)

- Richard

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

29 Mar 2009 - 1:36pm
Richard Dalton
2008

Dave, you're right - some of what JJG said was inflammatory. Please
though - lets try and look past the exact words used and some of the
negative context at the message itself. We all care about the same
thing and use related techniques and approaches to fix it.

Lets take a leaf from Obama's book (there at least I know we agree
Dave!) - and find our common ground to efficiently support everyone
in this field regardless of their organizational affiliation or
history.

- Richard

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

29 Mar 2009 - 1:47pm
milan
2005

If you read some of the messages here and also the speech, one can have
the impression that there is a war going on. A silly one.

To me, IxDA is the greatest UX community that exists today.
But that's not due to separation and exclusiveness, but because of its
broadness and openness.

It's just about the next step in that direction.

milan
--
milan guenther * interaction design
||| | | |||| || |||||||| | || | ||

+33 6 67 11 13 83 * www.guenther.cx

29 Mar 2009 - 2:47pm
Angel Marquez
2008

If the solution involves someone like myself removing themselves from the
community just give me the word as long as all my posts are deleted upon my
removing myself.

29 Mar 2009 - 2:48pm
Dan Saffer
2003

On Mar 29, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Richard Dalton wrote:

> I don't buy Dan's assertion that the IxDA list is mainly
> about IxDA - so I did a little analysis on the July messages (I
> picked July because it had a lot of messages - 196 in total), here is
> the breakdown:
>
> Job 53
> Event 38
> Interfaces 23
> Other 11
> Usability 8
> Prototyping 7
> Learning 6
> Book 5
> Process 5
> Research 5
> UX 5
> IA 4
> Design 3
> New Product 3
> Search 3
> CMS 2
> Errors 2
> Form Design 2
> Accessibility 1
> Article 1
> Documentation 1
> Eye Tracking 1
> Interviewing 1
> Labels 1
> Legal 1
> Local 1
> Org Charts 1
> Persuasion 1
> Roles 1
>
> Of all of those categories the 23 out of 196 about Interface issue
> were the ones you could probably point to and say "they're mostly
> IxDA" - but even they're not exclusively about IxDA issues and
> they're only a small percentage of the traffic - much of which was
> probably also cross posted to the IAI list!

Why do you think only interface design is the only topic that is pure
IxD? The only ones on this list that I would put in the NOT on topic
are CMS, IA and UX, Search, Org Charts, and Persuasion. Nearly
everything else I would say is at least related to, if not directly a
part of, the field of interaction design. So only 16 out of 196 (8%)
were off topic.

It would be interesting to do the same tally with a month of SIG-IA.

Dan

29 Mar 2009 - 3:02pm
Mark Schraad
2006

Hi Dave,

Admittedly I kind of ignored that digression, not knowing much about
the issue, and frankly not caring to know. Which is not at all meant
to trivialize that part of the conversation... its just not mine.

I know there is some old and apparently deep division amongst the two
groups. I have never felt like I was part of either group to the
exclusion of the other... or UPA, SIG-CHI, DMI and others. They are
all a subset of how I see role professionally. And I think a lot of
folks on these boards feel that way as well.

And for the record... I don't think there is anything to be gained by
joining the to groups in any fashion. The two groups approach related
work and overlapping efforts with distinctly different
perspectives... both valid and both important in their own right.
Homogenization is not necessary or beneficial. I do think that it
makes total sense to get over what ever bad blood is there and
collaborate. We will be much stronger if these two entities remain
separate and work together... and in fact along side ISDA, and even
the AIGA.

Mark

On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Dave Malouf wrote:

> Mark & Richard,
>
> much of the content of the talk was spot on.
>
> he lost me at his mis-information about what went down between IAS
> and IxDA this year. He mis-represented IxDA completely and demonized
> the organization totally unnecessarily. His point was clear w/o doing
> that, and he lost my respect for not doing the truly respectful and
> professional thing of either staying out of it, providing both points
> of view, or finding out the truth.
>
> It actually demonstrated for me clearly that JJG is too biased by his
> background of the IA community first (he's done nothing to engage
> this community, unlike Peter M., his partner), which is really my
> main point when speaking to Richard in this thread.
>
> - -dave
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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

29 Mar 2009 - 3:12pm
Richard Dalton
2008

Dan, you said "On the IxDA list, the topics may occasionally be
stupid and redundant, but at least for the most part they are focused
on interaction design specific issues."

My point is not that the majority of those 196 are off-topic, far
from it, my point is that they're mostly about *more* than
Interaction Design.

- Richard

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

29 Mar 2009 - 3:56pm
Todd Warfel
2003

Is that list still around.

On Mar 29, 2009, at 3:48 PM, Dan Saffer wrote:

> It would be interesting to do the same tally with a month of SIG-IA.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter: zakiwarfel
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

29 Mar 2009 - 8:48pm
Peter Merholz
2004

Throughout all of this, what's most disconcerting is that a few people
who represent the early interests of these different communities
continue to operate as the primary voices of leadership, though their
perspectives are not shared by the broader communities they claim to
represent (at least, not in my conversations with folks). Instead,
their perspectives are informed by selfish motivations derived by the
sense of identity they receive from their legacies.

With respect to IxDA and IAI (and it's worth noting, I was president
of IAI for two years, from 2005-2007), the membership has far more in
common than in difference. Feet on the ground, you see the same
individuals facilitating the IDEA 2009 and Interaction10 conferences,
and you realize the commentary of supposed leaders is worth little
more than the hot air their issuing forth.

Thankfully, the membership demonstrates far more sense than the
leadership.

--peter

29 Mar 2009 - 9:59pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Peter,

That was just a continuation of the piece of Jesse's message that is
beyond out of line.

What's worse it is fraught with misinformation and spewing toxicity
in the middle of what actually could be a fruitful conversation.

Whatever you think you know about the people in IxDA, you really
don't.

You also don't listen. No one has said that there isn't overlap of
membership, or even methods between disciplines. What I and others
have been saying is that beyond the overlap there is definite
distinction and for all the platitudes towards membership you gave
above, none of them actually speak to the realities of the data:

1. More volunteers for Ix10 are NOT working on IDEA09 than are.
2. There is less overlap between IAI & IxDA statistically than you
are representing. I'd say way less than 1/2 at most 40%.
3. UX may be a construct of understanding for some in IxDA & IA, In
IxDA it is not the sole construct.

-- dave

ps. Please, stop accusing very hard working people who are passionate
about what they do like this. I will always be a leader of IxDA, but I
am even more concerned about the true leaders of IxDA who REALLY are
fantastic folks who do not deserve this treatment.

Disagree if you must (hell, i do all the time), but don't conjure up
stuff.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

29 Mar 2009 - 10:31pm
Russell E. Unger
2008

Dave,

I think Peter's referring to the web team, which, for IDEA &
Interaction10 is pretty similar.

I'd call that something to be proud of.

Russ

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

29 Mar 2009 - 11:42pm
Dave Malouf
2005

not sure why it is something to be proud of.
It's nice, but it is also sorta random to say 3 or 4 people is a
trend worthy of analysis, but I'll leave the stats to @docbaty. ;-)
-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

30 Mar 2009 - 12:04am
msweeny
2006

It most unfortunate that the level of discourse on this subject has fallen
so low as to include squishy defensive pseudo-innuendo. Because, up until
this post, the conversation has been conducted in a spirited and oddly
compelling manner. This has been one of the more subtle and slightly sneaky
"defining the d*** thing" conversations with the added flavor of ownership.
However, it is my belief, that we could easily be discussing how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin as the "answer" would be the same; it doesn't
matter.

Machiavelli said it best, truth is the outcome, regardless of the title. Who
went to IDEA? Both. Who went to Interaction09? Both. Who went to SXSW? Both.
Who went to IA Summit 10? Both. For me it is about engagement. Engagement
with information through systems facilitated by design. That's what I do. I
am defined by what I do and not by my title.

Perhaps this should be a panel discussion at either, both or all conventions
next year?

marianne
msweeny at speakeasy.net

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Merholz
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:48 PM
To: discuss at ixda.org
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] JJG's IA Summit 2009 Keynote

Throughout all of this, what's most disconcerting is that a few people who
represent the early interests of these different communities continue to
operate as the primary voices of leadership, though their perspectives are
not shared by the broader communities they claim to represent (at least, not
in my conversations with folks). Instead, their perspectives are informed by
selfish motivations derived by the sense of identity they receive from their
legacies.

With respect to IxDA and IAI (and it's worth noting, I was president of IAI
for two years, from 2005-2007), the membership has far more in common than
in difference. Feet on the ground, you see the same individuals facilitating
the IDEA 2009 and Interaction10 conferences, and you realize the commentary
of supposed leaders is worth little more than the hot air their issuing
forth.

Thankfully, the membership demonstrates far more sense than the leadership.

--peter
________________________________________________________________
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

30 Mar 2009 - 12:10am
Elizabeth Bacon
2003

Hi folks,

I read the transcript of JJG's keynote with a combination of
admiration and dismay -- certainly I was eager to consume the facts
after seeing the Twitter firestorm.

I admire his call for people to come together from the various UX
communities. Personally, I strongly agree that a wide-spread, formal
embrace of the user experience terminology has the potential to unite
all of our communities more tangibly from the point of view of the
outside world. For the record, I strongly advocated pursuing this
line of reasoning at the IxDA Board Retreat just prior to
Interaction'09, and I continue to push on this issue internally to
ensure that the IxDA leadership take whatever steps are appropriate
for the betterment of our membership and the world at large. The UX
movement has been developing organically for the past five years or
so, and clearly is reaching the tipping point. Both IAI and IxDA --
along with other orgs -- should be at the table when it comes to
harnessing this energy, but presently we all seem to lack clarity
about what the right avenues are to pursue this coming-togetherness.

While I believe that it is our operating within the UX discipline
that defines the common ground for IxDA & sister organizations like
IAI, I also believe that bringing all UX practitioners to live in the
same house would involve some challenging situations. I believe that
it would naturally result in many members still retreating to
smaller, shared spaces to geek-out with their fellow IAs, IxDs,
Researchers, Usability specialists, etc. So I think the value of
building & promoting the big house is principally to clarify to the
outside world the broad capabilities & great value of our various
disciplines. And that's an important goal, but as Janna pointed out
it is only one of many goals that each UX organization may have. I'm
extremely eager to hear from UXnet's leaders whether they envision
taking on a more active role in the world at large to address this
situation.

I feel extreme dismay for the aspersions that JJG has cast on the
IxDA leadership. I have been on the IxDA Board of Directors for two
years now, and have been an active member since before we were even
an official group. And I have no idea what he's talking about. I'm
bewildered how checking in with IAI about the date of their
conference in order to avoid conflict means we threw a temper
tantrum; and I'm utterly unaware of any offers of support or
cooperation that we have not taken up. It seems positively
schizophrenic to desire more cooperation and throw insults at the
same time. But then, it is certainly a conflicted feeling I have
personally when I consider whether IxDA should cede its energy to a
"UxDA" or somesuch entity.

To further address some of JJG's allegations, IxDA has never
promoted the use of interaction design as a title in order to further
some organizational agenda. On the contrary, we've long been
publicly, officially neutral on the issue of professional titles. As
recent discussions have shown, this neutrality is actually a
challenging position to maintain. What we have long insisted upon is
that interaction design is a valid field of professional focus &
study. IxDA leaders are so committed to this position that we've
been content to talk amongst ourselves & build our own community for
years now without worrying about how the rest of the world may be
perceiving us. Clearly, this lack of attention has to be addressed,
and it is being addressed with initiatives Jeremy & Janna mentioned
elsewhere.

I also don't understand how the IxDA leadership can possibly be
imagined to operate this organization as a zero-sum organization. We
offer free and open membership to all, and our leaders & members
maintain many webs of personal and professional relationships with
people outside the organization. IxDA board members are often
chatting with our fellow leaders in global and local forums, and
ensuring that we don't step on each other's toes as well as taking
opportunities to collaborate & share information. Various other
people have already attested to the ways in which these
cross-organizational interactions are happening. Could every single
one of the UX organizations' leaders be better at collaborating and
sharing information and indicating omnipresent mutual respect?
Perhaps -- we're all human, and all volunteers, and all working at
and above capacity every single day. If somebody out there knows that
there are some clear win-win situations between organizations just
lying on the floor neglected, by all means let us know about them.
I'm probably not as well-connected as I'd like to be, but I'm
really quite accessible!

For now, I'm going to carry on doing my best to advance the mission
of the IxDA, which is to improve the world through the discipline of
interaction design. I know this is a true discipline. I know that I
practice it passionately & sincerely--and yes, practice along with
other facets of UX practice like IA depending on the problem space at
hand. For now I'm home, and IxDA endures.

Peace out,
Liz
Vice-President, IxDA

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

30 Mar 2009 - 2:35am
dszuc
2005

Thanks Elizabeth :)

"Personally, I strongly agree that a wide-spread, formal embrace of
the user experience terminology has the potential to unite all of our
communities more tangibly from the point of view of the outside
world."

Me too!

"I admire his call for people to come together from the various UX
communities. "

Me too!

"The UX movement has been developing organically for the past five
years or so, and clearly is reaching the tipping point. Both IAI and
IxDA %u2014 along with other orgs %u2014 should be at the table when
it comes to harnessing this energy"

Yup and be pleased to be there.

"I also believe that bringing all UX practitioners to live in the
same house would involve some challenging situations. I believe that
it would naturally result in many members still retreating to
smaller, shared spaces to geek-out with their fellow IAs, IxDs,
Researchers, Usability specialists, etc. "

Yup it may and it may also still require difference conferences and
orgs, but be nice to have the consistent UX thread run through all.
Perhaps this is already happening? I think it is ... but we could do
more.

"I'm extremely eager to hear from UXnet's leaders whether they
envision taking on a more active role in the world at large to
address this situation."

Having a place where we can meet in person (say once a year?), have
representation from all disciplines/orgs to talk to challenges we all
face and how we want to advance UX (to name a few topics ... I am sure
we all share some of the same pain?) Sounds like a nice UXNet
initiative .. Lou? :)

I also enjoyed this recent interview with PeterMe as it gave me
addition background and perspectives -
http://www.teawithteresa.com/2009/03/history-evolution-of-user-experience.html

Note - I have attended the last 2 IXDA conferences, am a UPA and IAI
member, on the UPA board (have made some great friends in all
communities) and look forward to learning more from all disciplines
towards helping make products better ... who knows ... perhaps in the
process help grow the UX industry and help towards a better world to
live in.

rgds,
Dan
Title - the person who tries to make stuff better

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

30 Mar 2009 - 7:54am
jet
2008

marianne wrote:
> Machiavelli said it best, truth is the outcome, regardless of the title. Who
> went to IDEA? Both. Who went to Interaction09? Both. Who went to SXSW? Both.
> Who went to IA Summit 10? Both. For me it is about engagement. Engagement
> with information through systems facilitated by design. That's what I do. I
> am defined by what I do and not by my title.

And who went to TEI?

--
J. Eric "jet" Townsend, CMU Master of Tangible Interaction Design '09

design: www.allartburns.org; hacking: www.flatline.net; HF: KG6ZVQ
PGP: 0xD0D8C2E8 AC9B 0A23 C61A 1B4A 27C5 F799 A681 3C11 D0D8 C2E8

30 Mar 2009 - 8:45am
Todd Warfel
2003

TEI?

On Mar 30, 2009, at 8:54 AM, j. eric townsend wrote:

> TEI

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter: zakiwarfel
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

30 Mar 2009 - 10:38am
rseiji
2008

TEI - Tangible and Embedded Interaction (Conference)

Excited to attend next year edition.
Many experiments and project are been developed this year in this field.
(Including mine :)

Cheers, Ricardo Seiji.

30 Mar 2009 - 10:50am
jet
2008

Score one for making assumptions, I thought that the Tangible and
Embedded Interaction conference was well known: <http://www.tei-conf.org>.

Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
> TEI?
>
> On Mar 30, 2009, at 8:54 AM, j. eric townsend wrote:
>
>> TEI
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Todd Zaki Warfel
> Principal Design Researcher
> Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
> ----------------------------------
> *Contact Info*
> Voice: (215) 825-7423
> Email: todd at messagefirst.com <mailto:todd at messagefirst.com>
> AIM: twarfel at mac.com <mailto:twarfel at mac.com>
> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com <http://toddwarfel/>
> Twitter: zakiwarfel
> ----------------------------------
> In theory, theory and practice are the same.
> In practice, they are not.
>
>
>
>

--
J. Eric "jet" Townsend, CMU Master of Tangible Interaction Design '09

design: www.allartburns.org; hacking: www.flatline.net; HF: KG6ZVQ
PGP: 0xD0D8C2E8 AC9B 0A23 C61A 1B4A 27C5 F799 A681 3C11 D0D8 C2E8

30 Mar 2009 - 11:43am
Michele Marut
2005

I think Lou Rosenfeld's blog post about the UX debates (Mar 30, 2009:
Stop Listening to People like Me) could easily be posted to this
thread. Check it out at

http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/2009/03/stop_listening_to_people_like.html#comments

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

30 Mar 2009 - 9:42pm
Richard Dalton
2008

Dave, would it be worthwhile doing some research (if it hasn't been
done already) in both organizations (maybe more than just IAI and
IxDA) on how many of the *membership* find the concept of UX
resonates with what they do?

- Richard

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

31 Mar 2009 - 6:57am
Dave Malouf
2005

To what end?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

2 Apr 2009 - 11:26am
Sonia Dwyer
2009

I do think it is very useful to HR depts. and new job seekers to have
definable titles and labels they can use for different professions.
What's missing for me personally are some concise descriptions of
the work itself. If anyone can tell me briefly what information
architecture should involve and what user experience design should
involve that would be extremely helpful. I think of 'experience' as
the outcome of design so I am still not sure what scope of things are
actually being designed by UX Designers. If you were to scope a
curriculum today for teaching, what would be the boundaries of each
discipline and what would be the areas of specialty?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

2 Apr 2009 - 5:00pm
Gabby Hon
2006

Okay, but what if we come up with all these official job titles and
descriptions and what have you and they are blessed by the alphabet
soup of organizations--so what? We still can't force anyone to use
the titles appropriately or to copy and paste our version of job
descriptions.

It's really not that big of a problem and any kind of kerfluffle
that you run into over precision can be dealt with one-on-one. Like,
say, calling a recruiter and telling them that the job they emailed
about it mislabelled, etc.

Think global, act local--I think I read that somewhere once.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

2 Apr 2009 - 6:08pm
jet
2008

Gabby Hon wrote:
> We still can't force anyone to use
> the titles appropriately or to copy and paste our version of job
> descriptions.

Architects and Interior Designers seemed to have figured something out.

--
J. Eric "jet" Townsend, CMU Master of Tangible Interaction Design '09

design: www.allartburns.org; hacking: www.flatline.net; HF: KG6ZVQ
PGP: 0xD0D8C2E8 AC9B 0A23 C61A 1B4A 27C5 F799 A681 3C11 D0D8 C2E8

2 Apr 2009 - 9:10pm
Richard Dalton
2008

Please lets look past the job titles. The deeper meaning here is that
you can very rarely do IA without it being impacted by IxD and vice
versa and that almost everyone calling themselves an IA does IxD too
and everyone calling themselves an IxD does IA too.

To me this means there should be way more collaboration between the
two communities.

- Richard

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

3 Apr 2009 - 8:32am
Dave Malouf
2005

Richard, you believe deeply in the need for collaboration for
yourself. That's great!

Here's what I suggest you do.

Do it!!!!

Don't wait for the organizations to come along and do it. Just do
it. If you feel that we are doing this work at a snail's pace, then
figure out ways to increase the love between those peers that you
feel will get you the most traction.

Sketch > Model > Validate > Prototype > Evangelize > Build

Just do the work.

I often have a few people on my shoulder who carry me through moments
like these. Right now I'm thinking about Christina W. and Andrei H.

Both people are just so against talking bullshit.
Christina has always taken her passion for communty and applied it
directly to DOING stuff. IA Summit, Asilomar, IAI, B&A, Linked In

Andrei has always said that doing it, doing all of it is the best way
to get people to understand what it is you mean.

So just do it! It is obvious that there are people who would greatly
benefit from any sort of collaboration, or cooperation, or
co-sponsoring, or whatever between IA & IxD in whatever manifestation
you come up with.

This is one of those things that just require vision and pull
leadership. The followers will come if indeed it is worthy. I"ve had
great successes and great failures in this process, but trying is the
key!

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=40597

Syndicate content Get the feed