RE: Where Interaction Sits.

16 Feb 2005 - 7:59am
9 years ago
6 replies
292 reads
Dave Malouf
2005

Not sure what is wrong w/ Interaction Design.
We design the behaviors of systems as they interact with humans.

In the UCD world (those disciplines created around UCD, not ones that impact
it like Visual Design who's origins go to unrelated areas). Yes,
HCI/Usability is related to Human Factors/Ergonomics which to me is a UCD
world thing ...

My point is that in this world it is important to understand that the
discipline of IxD is the only design based discipline:
You have research which is not design
You have usability/validation/evaluation which is not design

IxD is that craft.

And when you talk about IA as being something at the edge of your plane of
IA < > UI Design, I would tend to disagree on your plane.

UI Design is the overlap of IxD and Visual Design
IA is the overlap of IxD and Library Science

SO I think of IxD not as a go between, but rather a lynch pin requirement
for the others.

Now of course the first thing we might argue about is "what is IA?" ... I'll
leave that for the SIGIA-L and AIfIA lists to do since no one really wants
to deal with that little problem. I know that companies born from the
dot-com era like Sapient usually use the IA = UX model of defining IA which
works fine for them as most of what they do is build web sites, that are
content consumption or information management systems.

I have also been thinking of a different relationship lately between IA and
IxD where IA is actually a subunit of IxD in that IA are the specific
qualities of making information/content ready for consumption which in
essense is a type of interaction/behavior. Just a theory I've been
exploring. What is the point of metadata, facets, and taxonomies? To make
something findable (later). Finding is a behavior/interaction with the
system.

But I digress.

I say, Interaction Design is the term to stick with. It is gaining ground
here in the US slowly. People inside the UX community are starting to
understand what I mean. I.e. I went to an IDSA (industrial Design society of
america) meeting recently and talked about IxD and UX and they got it, liked
it and were excited about working with us in the future to the point of
inviting us straight out to talk about IxD at their next conference.

-- dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CD Evans [mailto:cd at infostyling.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:49 AM
> To: David Heller
> Cc: 'IxD Discussion'
> Subject: Where Interaction Sits.
>
>
> I'm just throwing this out there but my current experience
> with sapient
> is leading me to think that the term 'Interaction Design /
> Architecture' has a position in UE that is locatable and almost
> inoffensive. I think it sits right in between 'Information
> Architecture' and 'Interface Design', and doesn't actually
> replace the
> second, and so I'm referring my work within this project entitled as
> Interaction Architecture, on purpose, though with hesitation.
>
> Please, if someone can come up with a word between Architecture and
> Design, I would think Interaction Something-Or-Rather, i.e.
> ThisList/IXD/ID, we would sit happily between the LIS and HCI
> communities without ruffling any feathers.
>
> Not to flag an unresolved outstanding issue again, but,
> perhaps we can
> find a term here?
>
> Thanks.. back to the entation.
>
> CD Evans
>
>
>

Comments

16 Feb 2005 - 11:26am
CD Evans
2004

I totally agree, but there is definitely need for further definition.
To me it's an I for 'Interaction' just because 'Information' is not my
focus, but I feel that an A for 'Architecture' is most likely what it
is.

I think there is a need to apply the logic of architecture to the
interaction itself and not just the information. IXD is popular, but
not as popular as IA was when it first hit the field during dotcom, and
why? Because this is architecture, as undefined as it might be, and
people accept that.

I think the term 'Interaction' is scarily under-appreciated, as
evidenced by the cheer numbers of people wanting interactive systems,
and so we are right to use this term. But relate this to the number of
people considering 'Interaction' in terms of architecture, as well as
design, this is right not typically focused on language and that's a
problem.

What is architecture? Maybe ask an artist, they seem to overlap with
architecture quite a bit. Oddly, design and art don't go well enough
together, but art and architecture do. And have for a very long time.
The art and architecture of language in a system is a fascinating thing
from an business perspective, but what about from other perspectives?
There are lots of people with these machines after all.

Interaction Design somehow typically lacks the creative instinct that
language contains, and as so can't be called an architecture as it is
today, which is why we need to think about the spaces we are creating,
from a artists perspective to gain further insight, or we can't create
architectures without being stuck on only working with language.

What else do you call a collection of spaces for people? Take a look at
the mit media lab and you will see Interaction Architecture emerging,
not just Information Architecture, that already happened.

Try to think about it from a architects position, after all they are a
persona we should focus on. We really should just ask them how they can
help us incorporate some creativity and culture in our architectures
without just focusing on databases, taxonomies and front-ends. (Which
are oddly historical terms, do you really want to classify our building
tools as so being governmental?) Anyway, how would you try to encourage
a culture of craft and enjoyment, family and health, within these
architectures without looking at the the links to art that are already
in the logic of architecture? We need that understanding in order to
craft anything even remotely related to architecture.

There is art in interaction as well as language, it might help if there
was architecture there as well.

CD Evans

On Feb 16, 2005, at 1:59 PM, David Heller wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Not sure what is wrong w/ Interaction Design.
> We design the behaviors of systems as they interact with humans.
>
> In the UCD world (those disciplines created around UCD, not ones that
> impact
> it like Visual Design who's origins go to unrelated areas). Yes,
> HCI/Usability is related to Human Factors/Ergonomics which to me is a
> UCD
> world thing ...
>
> My point is that in this world it is important to understand that the
> discipline of IxD is the only design based discipline:
> You have research which is not design
> You have usability/validation/evaluation which is not design
>
> IxD is that craft.
>
> And when you talk about IA as being something at the edge of your
> plane of
> IA < > UI Design, I would tend to disagree on your plane.
>
> UI Design is the overlap of IxD and Visual Design
> IA is the overlap of IxD and Library Science
>
> SO I think of IxD not as a go between, but rather a lynch pin
> requirement
> for the others.
>
> Now of course the first thing we might argue about is "what is IA?"
> ... I'll
> leave that for the SIGIA-L and AIfIA lists to do since no one really
> wants
> to deal with that little problem. I know that companies born from the
> dot-com era like Sapient usually use the IA = UX model of defining IA
> which
> works fine for them as most of what they do is build web sites, that
> are
> content consumption or information management systems.
>
> I have also been thinking of a different relationship lately between
> IA and
> IxD where IA is actually a subunit of IxD in that IA are the specific
> qualities of making information/content ready for consumption which in
> essense is a type of interaction/behavior. Just a theory I've been
> exploring. What is the point of metadata, facets, and taxonomies? To
> make
> something findable (later). Finding is a behavior/interaction with the
> system.
>
> But I digress.
>
> I say, Interaction Design is the term to stick with. It is gaining
> ground
> here in the US slowly. People inside the UX community are starting to
> understand what I mean. I.e. I went to an IDSA (industrial Design
> society of
> america) meeting recently and talked about IxD and UX and they got it,
> liked
> it and were excited about working with us in the future to the point of
> inviting us straight out to talk about IxD at their next conference.
>
> -- dave
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CD Evans [mailto:cd at infostyling.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:49 AM
>> To: David Heller
>> Cc: 'IxD Discussion'
>> Subject: Where Interaction Sits.
>>
>>
>> I'm just throwing this out there but my current experience
>> with sapient
>> is leading me to think that the term 'Interaction Design /
>> Architecture' has a position in UE that is locatable and almost
>> inoffensive. I think it sits right in between 'Information
>> Architecture' and 'Interface Design', and doesn't actually
>> replace the
>> second, and so I'm referring my work within this project entitled as
>> Interaction Architecture, on purpose, though with hesitation.
>>
>> Please, if someone can come up with a word between Architecture and
>> Design, I would think Interaction Something-Or-Rather, i.e.
>> ThisList/IXD/ID, we would sit happily between the LIS and HCI
>> communities without ruffling any feathers.
>>
>> Not to flag an unresolved outstanding issue again, but,
>> perhaps we can
>> find a term here?
>>
>> Thanks.. back to the entation.
>>
>> CD Evans
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
> Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/
>

16 Feb 2005 - 11:49am
Jonas Löwgren
2003

The architect analogy for our discipline has been around for a long
time. The first time I recall seeing it is in the chapter by Kristina
Hooper, in _User-Centered System Design_, edited by Draper and
somebody, 1986, if memory serves.

But I have never seen it really go anywhere. Not until I read Malcolm
McCullough's recent book _Digital Ground_. To me, that is state of the
art in thinking about what architecture means, or could mean, for
interaction design. The key concept, I think, is "place" (as opposed to
"space").

/Jonas Löwgren

----
Arts and Communication
Malmö University, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden

phone +46 7039 17854
web http://webzone.k3.mah.se/k3jolo

16 Feb 2005 - 11:49am
Dave Malouf
2005

CD,

This discussion adds really no value. The terms Architecture and Designer
are arbitrary at best. All your truism in the below are opinions of
interpretation. Architecture is design. It has a more "technical" feel b/c
it is licensed and deals in the physical. The term Info. Arch. Has power do
to dot-com pull alone, but means little more than that due to its own
dilution.

Architecture is a Design discipline, so what's the point of going down this
road?

Also, call yourself whatever you like. Most of us do. I don't even have
"interaction" in my title, b/c it isn't the only thing that I do.

At this point:
1. IxDG has a strong brand that people resonate with
2. Names are going to have so many different meanings depending on language
location, vertical industry, etc. We are never going to be able to meet
everyone's needs.

In discussions with many about growing this organization and this discipline
the one thing that has become clear to me is that our strongest
differentiator is that we are PRACTITIONERS and we are DESIGNERS

I realize the first thing is not 100% true, but that Design stands us apart
is definitely true.

If you look at UCD, it has 3 basic components:
Research
Validation
Craft/Design

Research = SIGCHI
Validation = UPA
Craft/Design = ?? No one

AIGA is not a UCD based organization
IA is not a design based organization or it is a niche organization of one
type of digital product, and not the whole gambit of digital products that
we are exploring.

-- dave

On 2/16/05 11:26 AM, "CD Evans" <cd at infostyling.com> wrote:

>
> I totally agree, but there is definitely need for further definition.
> To me it's an I for 'Interaction' just because 'Information' is not my
> focus, but I feel that an A for 'Architecture' is most likely what it
> is.
>
> I think there is a need to apply the logic of architecture to the
> interaction itself and not just the information. IXD is popular, but
> not as popular as IA was when it first hit the field during dotcom, and
> why? Because this is architecture, as undefined as it might be, and
> people accept that.
>
> I think the term 'Interaction' is scarily under-appreciated, as
> evidenced by the cheer numbers of people wanting interactive systems,
> and so we are right to use this term. But relate this to the number of
> people considering 'Interaction' in terms of architecture, as well as
> design, this is right not typically focused on language and that's a
> problem.
>
> What is architecture? Maybe ask an artist, they seem to overlap with
> architecture quite a bit. Oddly, design and art don't go well enough
> together, but art and architecture do. And have for a very long time.
> The art and architecture of language in a system is a fascinating thing
> from an business perspective, but what about from other perspectives?
> There are lots of people with these machines after all.
>
> Interaction Design somehow typically lacks the creative instinct that
> language contains, and as so can't be called an architecture as it is
> today, which is why we need to think about the spaces we are creating,
> from a artists perspective to gain further insight, or we can't create
> architectures without being stuck on only working with language.
>
> What else do you call a collection of spaces for people? Take a look at
> the mit media lab and you will see Interaction Architecture emerging,
> not just Information Architecture, that already happened.
>
> Try to think about it from a architects position, after all they are a
> persona we should focus on. We really should just ask them how they can
> help us incorporate some creativity and culture in our architectures
> without just focusing on databases, taxonomies and front-ends. (Which
> are oddly historical terms, do you really want to classify our building
> tools as so being governmental?) Anyway, how would you try to encourage
> a culture of craft and enjoyment, family and health, within these
> architectures without looking at the the links to art that are already
> in the logic of architecture? We need that understanding in order to
> craft anything even remotely related to architecture.
>
> There is art in interaction as well as language, it might help if there
> was architecture there as well.
>
> CD Evans
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2005, at 1:59 PM, David Heller wrote:
>
>> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
>> material.]
>>
>> Not sure what is wrong w/ Interaction Design.
>> We design the behaviors of systems as they interact with humans.
>>
>> In the UCD world (those disciplines created around UCD, not ones that
>> impact
>> it like Visual Design who's origins go to unrelated areas). Yes,
>> HCI/Usability is related to Human Factors/Ergonomics which to me is a
>> UCD
>> world thing ...
>>
>> My point is that in this world it is important to understand that the
>> discipline of IxD is the only design based discipline:
>> You have research which is not design
>> You have usability/validation/evaluation which is not design
>>
>> IxD is that craft.
>>
>> And when you talk about IA as being something at the edge of your
>> plane of
>> IA < > UI Design, I would tend to disagree on your plane.
>>
>> UI Design is the overlap of IxD and Visual Design
>> IA is the overlap of IxD and Library Science
>>
>> SO I think of IxD not as a go between, but rather a lynch pin
>> requirement
>> for the others.
>>
>> Now of course the first thing we might argue about is "what is IA?"
>> ... I'll
>> leave that for the SIGIA-L and AIfIA lists to do since no one really
>> wants
>> to deal with that little problem. I know that companies born from the
>> dot-com era like Sapient usually use the IA = UX model of defining IA
>> which
>> works fine for them as most of what they do is build web sites, that
>> are
>> content consumption or information management systems.
>>
>> I have also been thinking of a different relationship lately between
>> IA and
>> IxD where IA is actually a subunit of IxD in that IA are the specific
>> qualities of making information/content ready for consumption which in
>> essense is a type of interaction/behavior. Just a theory I've been
>> exploring. What is the point of metadata, facets, and taxonomies? To
>> make
>> something findable (later). Finding is a behavior/interaction with the
>> system.
>>
>> But I digress.
>>
>> I say, Interaction Design is the term to stick with. It is gaining
>> ground
>> here in the US slowly. People inside the UX community are starting to
>> understand what I mean. I.e. I went to an IDSA (industrial Design
>> society of
>> america) meeting recently and talked about IxD and UX and they got it,
>> liked
>> it and were excited about working with us in the future to the point of
>> inviting us straight out to talk about IxD at their next conference.
>>
>> -- dave
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CD Evans [mailto:cd at infostyling.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:49 AM
>>> To: David Heller
>>> Cc: 'IxD Discussion'
>>> Subject: Where Interaction Sits.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm just throwing this out there but my current experience
>>> with sapient
>>> is leading me to think that the term 'Interaction Design /
>>> Architecture' has a position in UE that is locatable and almost
>>> inoffensive. I think it sits right in between 'Information
>>> Architecture' and 'Interface Design', and doesn't actually
>>> replace the
>>> second, and so I'm referring my work within this project entitled as
>>> Interaction Architecture, on purpose, though with hesitation.
>>>
>>> Please, if someone can come up with a word between Architecture and
>>> Design, I would think Interaction Something-Or-Rather, i.e.
>>> ThisList/IXD/ID, we would sit happily between the LIS and HCI
>>> communities without ruffling any feathers.
>>>
>>> Not to flag an unresolved outstanding issue again, but,
>>> perhaps we can
>>> find a term here?
>>>
>>> Thanks.. back to the entation.
>>>
>>> CD Evans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
>> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
>> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
>> Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
>> Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/
>>
>

16 Feb 2005 - 12:53pm
David Texidor
2004

Dave Heller wrote:
> IxD is that craft...I say, Interaction Design is the term to stick
with.

Dave, well put.
I was just going to say: Interaction Design-a-tecture

:-)
- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesign
ers.com] On Behalf Of David Heller
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 5:59 AM
To: 'IxD Discussion'
Subject: [ID Discuss] RE: Where Interaction Sits.

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
material.]

Not sure what is wrong w/ Interaction Design.
We design the behaviors of systems as they interact with humans.

In the UCD world (those disciplines created around UCD, not ones that
impact
it like Visual Design who's origins go to unrelated areas). Yes,
HCI/Usability is related to Human Factors/Ergonomics which to me is a
UCD
world thing ...

My point is that in this world it is important to understand that the
discipline of IxD is the only design based discipline:
You have research which is not design
You have usability/validation/evaluation which is not design

IxD is that craft.

And when you talk about IA as being something at the edge of your plane
of
IA < > UI Design, I would tend to disagree on your plane.

UI Design is the overlap of IxD and Visual Design
IA is the overlap of IxD and Library Science

SO I think of IxD not as a go between, but rather a lynch pin
requirement
for the others.

Now of course the first thing we might argue about is "what is IA?" ...
I'll
leave that for the SIGIA-L and AIfIA lists to do since no one really
wants
to deal with that little problem. I know that companies born from the
dot-com era like Sapient usually use the IA = UX model of defining IA
which
works fine for them as most of what they do is build web sites, that are
content consumption or information management systems.

I have also been thinking of a different relationship lately between IA
and
IxD where IA is actually a subunit of IxD in that IA are the specific
qualities of making information/content ready for consumption which in
essense is a type of interaction/behavior. Just a theory I've been
exploring. What is the point of metadata, facets, and taxonomies? To
make
something findable (later). Finding is a behavior/interaction with the
system.

But I digress.

I say, Interaction Design is the term to stick with. It is gaining
ground
here in the US slowly. People inside the UX community are starting to
understand what I mean. I.e. I went to an IDSA (industrial Design
society of
america) meeting recently and talked about IxD and UX and they got it,
liked
it and were excited about working with us in the future to the point of
inviting us straight out to talk about IxD at their next conference.

-- dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CD Evans [mailto:cd at infostyling.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:49 AM
> To: David Heller
> Cc: 'IxD Discussion'
> Subject: Where Interaction Sits.
>
>
> I'm just throwing this out there but my current experience
> with sapient
> is leading me to think that the term 'Interaction Design /
> Architecture' has a position in UE that is locatable and almost
> inoffensive. I think it sits right in between 'Information
> Architecture' and 'Interface Design', and doesn't actually
> replace the
> second, and so I'm referring my work within this project entitled as
> Interaction Architecture, on purpose, though with hesitation.
>
> Please, if someone can come up with a word between Architecture and
> Design, I would think Interaction Something-Or-Rather, i.e.
> ThisList/IXD/ID, we would sit happily between the LIS and HCI
> communities without ruffling any feathers.
>
> Not to flag an unresolved outstanding issue again, but,
> perhaps we can
> find a term here?
>
> Thanks.. back to the entation.
>
> CD Evans
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Group!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixdg.org
(Un)Subscription Options ... http://discuss.ixdg.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixdg.org/
Questions .................. lists at ixdg.org
Home ....................... http://ixdg.org/

16 Feb 2005 - 12:55pm
Mike Baxter
2004

David>>This discussion adds really no value.
If we're talking about labels for professions, I agree! But I have to say
that a lot of these IxD discussions get stuck on labels. Come on people,
let's take a peek beneath the label! In terms of focus, the thing that
makes architects distinctive is their (obsessive?) focus on the design of
space and place (as Jonas mentioned). When they consider the design of
'things' it is usually to bound a space or define a place.
In this regard, I feel interaction design has (or should have) at least as
much common heritage with architectural design as it does with graphical
design. Aren't we concerned with the design of meaningful information
spaces and the places within them? If so, then I feel we have a lot to
learn from the thinking processes and conceptual tools used by architects.
As a specific issue here, Chris Alexander's pioneering work in design
patterns (and pattern languages etc see
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ChristopherAlexander ) was entirely based on planning
and architecture. We have used some of these ideas in interaction design
(e.g. http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/interaction_patterns.html ) and a lot
more in software design (e.g.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/practices/default.mspx ) but I do wonder
if we could use Alexander's work more directly to explore design patterns
for information spaces.
Mike

16 Feb 2005 - 1:17pm
Dave Malouf
2005

OH!!! If the question is who are sources of information to learn from.
Definitely Architecture is a wonderful source way beyond Christopher
Alexander.

But then again the work of the Pratt School's Foundations in Industrial
Design have a tone more to offer than just mere patterns in regards to form
and space.

And then there is the info design work of Tufte

And cog-psych work of the HCI community

My point is that Architecture is but one influence and not THE influence for
IxD.

AND for most of us, we are not really defining space, but we are using (oft
inappropriately) the metaphor of space in a 2-D environments.

But that is a different discussion. :) A good one at that.

-- dave

Syndicate content Get the feed