I agree with Nick Ragouzis' 1-2-3 analysis and what I meant by quoting
the numbers from the survey was exactly that: 39% in favor of starting a
new org, the rest not explicitly in favor of starting a new org. In a
situation like this, a 'don't care' answer has to be counted as a 'not
convinced of the benefits of starting a new org, otherwise I would have
checked that one.'
It is also interesting to think about the topical threads that are
starting to develop on this list (subscribers posting problems from
current practice to acquire input from peers). It seems like the topics
raised so far are mainly concerned with usability issues in rather
detailed user-interface design.
If that is a valid representation of the primary concerns of the
subscribers, then it says something about suitable directions for this
group of people, irrespective of whether a new org is formed, or a more
informal group is maintained (possibly in liaison with established
orgs), or another scheme is chosen.
And to me, that topical direction is not far from what is currently
being addressed in the 'mainstream' CHI community -- I am thinking of
the conference, of course, but also the interactions magazine and
popular textbooks such as Preece et al.: 'Interaction design: Beyond hci'.
On a slightly different note, I suppose my impression of the free-form
responses to the survey as being highly variable strongly supports
Challis' position. It would not be possible to form a movement based on
the current membership's wants and opinions. It would, however, be
possible to form a movement based on a core group of volunteers with the
time, energy and personal networks needed to further the development of
what they see as the core of 'interaction design.'