> Keep in mind that IxD did not exist a few short years ago. That means, > by > definition, that everyone in the field came here from some "other" > background!
I have to take exception to the first part of this statement. I've been
working in interface design for some 14 years now, and interaction was
always a component of it. (Unless of course you think designing the UI
to Photoshop takes no IxD experience.) To say that IxD did not exist
until a few short years ago is to negate all the work did by so many at
places like Xerox in the 70s, Apple in the 80s and the rest of many of
us working on application design in the early 90s, before the web
become "the next big thing."
++ Remember that I came from a background of studying Greek and Roman
architecture! So in my mind "a few short years ago" could easily go back to
the '70s! (Indeed, my first interactive video project was, I hesitate to
admit, in 1978!)
> Also, bear in mind that technology changes so quickly that often the > best > experts around have only 6 months experience, because that's how old > the > technology is!
I also take exception to this statement. Much of what occurs in IxD
these days, at least as it appears in the web space, is mostly a
different expression of what has been done in the past. It's only
expressed differently due to certain technological limitations or fads.
Some technology may be changing fast, but that in my experience doesn't
change the fundamentals about what interface design, and it's sibling
interaction design, is all about.
++ Point taken. Indeed, you are entirely correct -- the fundamentals are far
more consistent and enduring than the changing technologies. (I was just
trying to be encouraging to the new voices eager to enter the field!)