Bill Moggridge says IxD is over. ; -) (not really, but its nice and provocative)

29 Apr 2009 - 1:29pm
7 years ago
4 replies
1234 reads
Dave Malouf

Tim McCoy takes on the post here:

Jamin Hedeman had a first post on the quote here:

Here is how Jamin relates this:
"One audience member asked Moggridge to reflect on defining
interaction design as a discipline. In his response, he said that it
was necessary at the time to define it as a discipline because
software was so new and no one knew how to design it. But now that
it’s pervasive, interaction design as a discipline may no longer be

I think there are a few issues here:
1) Having just had a conversation with Bill Moggridge about a new
program in IxD I'm creating I know he isn't saying that IxD is not
necessary any longer and there is some aspect of this that doesn't
feel right to me. So I'm going to project my own interpretation ...
2) I think the issue has to do with practice vs. discipline. In
practice a separate role for IxD is probably growingly unnecessary. I
don't think we are there yet, but people like Bill M. who surrounds
himself with people "who get it" probably have a good grasp of the
future ahead of us. I think Tim concurs with this.
3) Like I said discipline is not the same as practice. In order to
maintain that people keep getting it and that we do a better job in
total of everyone getting it better the discipline is still incredibly
important and remains differentiated, or at least contextually
differentiated in each medium.

Anyway, what do other people think about this?

-- dave

Dave Malouf


30 Apr 2009 - 9:51am
Uday Gajendar

I posted a response here:

Basically: As long as there are technologies that shape human
attitudes & behaviors & perceptions, there will be a need for someone
to make them intuitively simple, emotionally appealing, and
behaviorally engaging.

I think "interaction design" (or synonymous verbiage: UI or UX,
etc) is still needed for the unique confluence of
skills/abilities/craft and perspectives/methods/principles offered.
There is a focus reaching beyond ID or GD, per Buchanan's Four
Orders Model. As a discipline it's still valued, insofar as business
& tech/engin leaders recognize its continued well as other

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new

30 Apr 2009 - 7:39pm
Jeremy Yuille

nice thoughts Dave and Uday,

my *quick* take on the practice/discipline thang is that they're
different and complimentary..

to me, practice is about the doing of something in the lived world..
it is an expansive activity that is necessary for a field to grow and

a discipline (for me) codifies that knowledge so that the learnings
from practice can be applied more widely (in education for example).
SO, yeah like you're saying Dave.. they're different..

...and discipline tends to lag behind practice in the day to day
stuff, but has the potential to effect foundational game-changing
shifts, or lead practice.

so what..? I am interested in talking about the finer points of the
discipline/practice etc, but also think this is possibly not the most
appropriate forum for that. I do think the unspoken issue in this, and
other related UX, IxD, etc etc discussions is:

"how does all this impact [my] daily working and intellectual

which is where I start thinking about IxDA and its capacity to
mediate between emergent practices and convergent disciplinary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new

1 May 2009 - 1:53pm
Dan Saffer

Speaking of Bill, anyone notice he just won Cooper-Hewitt's Lifetime
Achievement Award?



7 May 2009 - 1:46pm
Dave Malouf

In case peeps are interested, Bill posted his response to all this
stuff here back on the Cooper Journal site:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new

Syndicate content Get the feed