Interactive or interaction

20 Jul 2007 - 7:42am
7 years ago
25 replies
413 reads
Mark Schraad
2006

The work interactive (and not interaction) has been used very specifically. It speaks not to a just the specific genre of design, that being the design of a thing that is interactive, but of process as well. Interactive design is in fact a design that considers and involves all of the stakeholders. This approach can be, and should be considered in all design. This is an important distinction.

Mark

On Wednesday, July 18, 2007, at 08:07PM, "Mark Schraad" <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:

>They actually say "interactive design" - not designer, big difference.
>
>
>On Jul 18, 2007, at 7:58 PM, Jamin wrote:
>
>> Why do they keep saying "interactive designer?"
>>
>>
>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>> Posted from the new ixda.org
>> http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=18373
>>

Comments

20 Jul 2007 - 7:50am
Mark Schraad
2006

good lord... proof mark proof!

The word interactive (and not interaction) has been used very specifically. It speaks not to a just the specific genre of design, that being the design of a thing that is interactive, but of process as well. Interactive design is in fact a design that considers and involves all of the stakeholders. This approach can be, and should be considered in all design. This is an important distinction.

Mar

>On Wednesday, July 18, 2007, at 08:07PM, "Mark Schraad" <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:
>
>>They actually say "interactive design" - not designer, big difference.
>>
>>
>>On Jul 18, 2007, at 7:58 PM, Jamin wrote:
>>
>>> Why do they keep saying "interactive designer?"
>>>
>>>
>>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>>> Posted from the new ixda.org
>>> http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=18373
>>>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
>List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
>Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>Questions .................. list at ixda.org
>Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>
>

20 Jul 2007 - 1:30pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Mark,
in 15 years of doing this type of work I'm sorry but I've never
gotten to your understanding of what "interactive" design is.
In fact, for me "interactive" design usually means Web/CD-ROM
design where the person is a production person, and not really a
designer at all. It is the difference between a carpenter and an
architect, IMHO. Both have creative qualities, but an Interactive
Designer focuses on getting it done, the architect focuses on
conceiving and then managing the carpenter.

If you look at most "interactive design" programs out there today
they are mostly tools based and having little to do with process or
even design thinking.

yes, interaction design deals with interactive media, but uh, I still
don't get why they don't call the program "interaction design",
since 1 it seems to be in parallel more to current IxD programs like
CMU then to interactive design programs like SCAD and SVA and Art
School.

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=18494

20 Jul 2007 - 1:45pm
Christopher Fahey
2005

> in 15 years of doing this type of work I'm sorry but I've
> never gotten to your understanding of what "interactive" design is.

To me, an "interactive designer" is a designer who you can talk to and
who then TALKS BACK TO YOU!!

-Cf

Christopher Fahey
____________________________
Behavior
http://www.behaviordesign.com
me: http://www.graphpaper.com

20 Jul 2007 - 2:27pm
Josh Seiden
2003

Mark wrote:

"Interactive design is in fact a design that considers and involves
all of the stakeholders."

I've always understood the above as the definition of Participatory
Design. See http://hci.stanford.edu/bds/14-p-partic.html

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_design

I've understood "interactive" design as jargon that comes from the
agency world, with a meaning similar to what Dave suggests.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=18494

20 Jul 2007 - 2:38pm
mtumi
2004

I would disagree that it necessarily means production work, although
it may frequently. I just think in the agency world the term
"interactive" is used like "print" - it just specifies the type of
creative being produced.

I think an interactive designer is more likely to be hands-on coding
and doing graphic design, but for many projects (games, ads, mini-
sites) there might be no interaction designer at all, so they'd be
doing that as well. In many places I imagine the distinction would
be meaningless.

One could turn it on its head and say an interaction designer is
someone who works on interactive content but lacks the skills to do
the actual graphic design or coding.

Overall, I would say who cares?

One more relatively meaningless semantic argument for the list...

Michael

On Jul 20, 2007, at 3:27 PM, Josh Seiden wrote:

> Mark wrote:
>
> "Interactive design is in fact a design that considers and involves
> all of the stakeholders."
>
> I've always understood the above as the definition of Participatory
> Design. See http://hci.stanford.edu/bds/14-p-partic.html
>
> and
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_design
>
> I've understood "interactive" design as jargon that comes from the
> agency world, with a meaning similar to what Dave suggests.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=18494
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

20 Jul 2007 - 2:52pm
Mark Schraad
2006

Dave:
>If you look at most "interactive design" programs out there today
>they are mostly tools based and having little to do with process or
>even design thinking.
>
>yes, interaction design deals with interactive media, but uh, I still
>don't get why they don't call the program "interaction design",
>since 1 it seems to be in parallel more to current IxD programs like
>CMU then to interactive design programs like SCAD and SVA and Art
>School.

It is certainly out of place for me to speak for the program, but having some insight to the development of the curriculum and course structure may help me to clarify. So I will try.

IMO - This is not program to learn specifically how to develop web sites or interfaces - though that could be an outcome. This is a program to learn how to think - about design and about design management. My best guess is that they intentionally avoided the word 'interaction'. As I would have. Both of these degrees are applicable to design disciplines well beyond the IxDA's role.

BTW - there was never a mention in the program description of 'interactive designer'. Think beyond the person to the process, and beyond the screen.

Mark

22 Jul 2007 - 1:31pm
Peter Merholz
2004

Then shouldn't it just be called "design"?

The label "interactive design" seems purposefully chosen to be
confused with the more commonly understood "interaction design." I
mean, obviously the program knows there's a field of work called
interaction design, which many places offer degrees in, and has
instead chosen the term "interactive design," a concept which, if I
understand it as you're describing it, simply means "design."

Why muddy the waters?

--peter

On Jul 20, 2007, at 12:52 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:

>
> Dave:
>> If you look at most "interactive design" programs out there today
>> they are mostly tools based and having little to do with process or
>> even design thinking.
>>
>> yes, interaction design deals with interactive media, but uh, I still
>> don't get why they don't call the program "interaction design",
>> since 1 it seems to be in parallel more to current IxD programs like
>> CMU then to interactive design programs like SCAD and SVA and Art
>> School.
>
> It is certainly out of place for me to speak for the program, but
> having some insight to the development of the curriculum and course
> structure may help me to clarify. So I will try.
>
> IMO - This is not program to learn specifically how to develop web
> sites or interfaces - though that could be an outcome. This is a
> program to learn how to think - about design and about design
> management. My best guess is that they intentionally avoided the
> word 'interaction'. As I would have. Both of these degrees are
> applicable to design disciplines well beyond the IxDA's role.
>
> BTW - there was never a mention in the program description of
> 'interactive designer'. Think beyond the person to the process, and
> beyond the screen.
>
>
> Mark
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

22 Jul 2007 - 4:26pm
jkolko
2010

This thread is hilarious to me:

I ran a program - undergraduate - called Interaction Design at SCAD. SCAD
also has Interactive Design (and Gaming), and when I proposed a M.Des in
Interaction Design, the administration couldn't deal with the similar names,
nevermind the fact that my undergrad students were getting jobs solving real
problems at Cooper, IDEO, Ziba, frog, p&g, etc (and the ITGM kids were
getting jobs coding flash interfaces for companies you haven't heard of). I
don't work at SCAD anymore, but the Interaction M.Des proposal has literally
sat in limbo on the Vice President's desk for close to two years because
they couldn't figure out how to deal with a strong proposal with a
non-obvious-name. (I got sick of trying to logically engage in discourse at
the level of "Can't we just change the program name to Multi Media
Design?").

Interaction Design won't make sense to people until we do a better job of
explaining that it has nothing to do with the internet. It's our own fault
that people don't understand it.

> The label "interactive design" seems purposefully chosen to be
> confused with the more commonly understood "interaction design." I
> mean, obviously the program knows there's a field of work called
> interaction design, which many places offer degrees in, and has
> instead chosen the term "interactive design," a concept which, if I
> understand it as you're describing it, simply means "design."

>> yes, interaction design deals with interactive media, but uh, I still
>> don't get why they don't call the program "interaction design",
>> since 1 it seems to be in parallel more to current IxD programs like
>> CMU then to interactive design programs like SCAD and SVA and Art
>> School.

Jon Kolko | http://www.thoughtsOnInteraction.com

22 Jul 2007 - 6:11pm
.pauric
2006

"Interaction Design won't make sense to people until we do a better
job of explaining that it has nothing to do with the internet."

Buy that man a drink! well said.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=18494

22 Jul 2007 - 11:11pm
Mark Schraad
2006

nice... wish I had said it that way.

On Sunday, July 22, 2007, at 07:11PM, "pauric" <radiorental at gmail.com> wrote:
>"Interaction Design won't make sense to people until we do a better
>job of explaining that it has nothing to do with the internet."
>
>Buy that man a drink! well said.
>
>
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>Posted from the new ixda.org
>http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=18494
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
>List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
>List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
>Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>Questions .................. list at ixda.org
>Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>
>

22 Jul 2007 - 11:25pm
Peter Merholz
2004

For all the back-patting around the definition of interaction design,
no one has bothered to define "interactive design," nor has anyone
meaningfully responded to my comment that "interactive design" is a
meaningless phrase, if it's actual definition is what Mark said it
was (because then it would just be called "design").

Will someone bother to please shed light on this matter, and not toss
glib phraseology that gets us no further?

--peter

On Jul 22, 2007, at 2:26 PM, Jon [GMAIL] wrote:

>
> This thread is hilarious to me:
>
> I ran a program - undergraduate - called Interaction Design at
> SCAD. SCAD
> also has Interactive Design (and Gaming), and when I proposed a
> M.Des in
> Interaction Design, the administration couldn't deal with the
> similar names,
> nevermind the fact that my undergrad students were getting jobs
> solving real
> problems at Cooper, IDEO, Ziba, frog, p&g, etc (and the ITGM kids were
> getting jobs coding flash interfaces for companies you haven't
> heard of). I
> don't work at SCAD anymore, but the Interaction M.Des proposal has
> literally
> sat in limbo on the Vice President's desk for close to two years
> because
> they couldn't figure out how to deal with a strong proposal with a
> non-obvious-name. (I got sick of trying to logically engage in
> discourse at
> the level of "Can't we just change the program name to Multi Media
> Design?").
>
> Interaction Design won't make sense to people until we do a better
> job of
> explaining that it has nothing to do with the internet. It's our
> own fault
> that people don't understand it.
>
>> The label "interactive design" seems purposefully chosen to be
>> confused with the more commonly understood "interaction design." I
>> mean, obviously the program knows there's a field of work called
>> interaction design, which many places offer degrees in, and has
>> instead chosen the term "interactive design," a concept which, if I
>> understand it as you're describing it, simply means "design."
>
>>> yes, interaction design deals with interactive media, but uh, I
>>> still
>>> don't get why they don't call the program "interaction design",
>>> since 1 it seems to be in parallel more to current IxD programs like
>>> CMU then to interactive design programs like SCAD and SVA and Art
>>> School.
>
> Jon Kolko | http://www.thoughtsOnInteraction.com
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

22 Jul 2007 - 11:45pm
Deepak Pakhare
2005

I think Multimedia and Interactive design are synonymous. Or were,
until the later part of the 1990s. "Multimedia" just evolved into
"Interactive" primarily because the ad agency world stuck with it
to refer to teams or that part of the creative department that did
websites, flash presentations etc. distinct from the print design
people and often times headed by a creative director.

Today, "Multimedia" I notice is a term used to just refer to a
juiced-up computer with enhanced audio-visual capabilities. And still
today, sometimes to refer to a course that teaches you Photoshop,
Flash etc.

It seems the ad agency term has prevailed generally amongst media
business creative agency people. For practitioners of interaction
design, the difference is distinct and well understood. Should it
matter that the distinction is clear to the world at large?

Software and industrial design people typically seek out interaction
designers and vice-versa. Ad agencies seek out Interactive designers.
If I do interaction design and looking for work, I would steer clear
of ad agencies...or if I were good at both kinds of work then I would
be generally doing UX work.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=18494

23 Jul 2007 - 12:20am
Dave Chiu
2006

IMO, "interactive" is an adjective describing the quality of some
_thing_, whereas "interaction" is an activity or process that occurs
over time. Interactive design (the design of interactive things) is
therefore different from interaction design (enabling processes,
activities, or opportunities).

I graduated from Interaction Design Institute Ivrea in 2006 (in
Italy) and I was surprised upon coming back to the US that
interaction design here is (as far as I can tell) more often than not
exclusively tied to websites or things with screens (ATMs, mobile
phones, etc.). In other words, interaction = interactive = web
usability, software, and wireframes. Over in Europe, I've perceived
interaction design to include those platforms but also extend into
other kinds of media (the excellent work by Schulze and Webb, for
example: http://schulzeandwebb.com/2006/availabot/) and even into
fuzzy areas such as the design of services.

The best description of the distinction between interactive design
and interaction design that I've run across is a few years old now,
but still good:

http://www.pixelache.ac/2005/archives/interactivity-is-the-new-pink/

Dave

On 20 Jul , 2007, at 3:52 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:

>
> Dave:
>> If you look at most "interactive design" programs out there today
>> they are mostly tools based and having little to do with process or
>> even design thinking.
>>
>> yes, interaction design deals with interactive media, but uh, I still
>> don't get why they don't call the program "interaction design",
>> since 1 it seems to be in parallel more to current IxD programs like
>> CMU then to interactive design programs like SCAD and SVA and Art
>> School.
>
> It is certainly out of place for me to speak for the program, but
> having some insight to the development of the curriculum and course
> structure may help me to clarify. So I will try.
>
> IMO - This is not program to learn specifically how to develop web
> sites or interfaces - though that could be an outcome. This is a
> program to learn how to think - about design and about design
> management. My best guess is that they intentionally avoided the
> word 'interaction'. As I would have. Both of these degrees are
> applicable to design disciplines well beyond the IxDA's role.
>
> BTW - there was never a mention in the program description of
> 'interactive designer'. Think beyond the person to the process, and
> beyond the screen.
>
>
> Mark
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

23 Jul 2007 - 12:33am
Christian Crumlish
2006

terms of art can be distinguished by usage, but surely - absent a
consensus otherwise - interactive and interaction are different parts
of speech relating to the same thing?

-xian-

On Jul 22, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Dave Chiu wrote:

> IMO, "interactive" is an adjective describing the quality of some
> _thing_, whereas "interaction" is an activity or process that occurs
> over time. Interactive design (the design of interactive things) is
> therefore different from interaction design (enabling processes,
> activities, or opportunities).

23 Jul 2007 - 1:53am
Leisa Reichelt
2006

my experience with this terminology was that 'interactive' design was a term
used predominantly in agencies to distinguish design for the internet from
other design (graphic design, broadcast design etc.)

interactive was more of a 'department' than it was a skill set, if you were
a designer that fitted into that department you were an 'interactive
designer'. (developers didn't tend to need distinguishing from the rest of
the agency ;)

within 'interactive design' would be where the real titles would start to
apply - and one of those *might* be an interaction designer. Although, it
would be a rare agency who'd hire a proper interaction designer. They'd
usually get buy with a 'producer', who'd do IA, ID, and often the project
and account management.

in my experience - things have moved on significantly since then, but been
my experience of how it worked in the wild.

I wouldn't have thought it was a relevant question these days. If you're
seeing an advertisement for an 'interactive designer' then you're probably
at risk of working for one of the above mentioned agencies who haven't yet
moved on ;)

________________________
Leisa Reichelt
Disambiguity.com
Contextual Research, User Centred Design & Social Design

leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
+44 778 071 2129

23 Jul 2007 - 5:46am
jkolko
2010

> For all the back-patting around the definition of interaction design,
> no one has bothered to define "interactive design," nor has anyone
> meaningfully responded to my comment that "interactive design" is a
> meaningless phrase, if it's actual definition is what Mark said it
> was (because then it would just be called "design").
>
> Will someone bother to please shed light on this matter, and not toss
> glib phraseology that gets us no further?

In fact, Deepak, Michael, Josh, Leisa, Christian, Dave, Mark and David have
all "bothered" to define the term, and the majority had "meaningful
responses". Just because you don't like their responses doesn't make them
worthless, and the pot may be colored black with regards to glib comments.

I "bothered" as well, in my book:

==

Interaction Design frequently gets confused with the design of websites,
because people interact with websites and because web development teams find
value in having Interaction Designers working with them. Interaction Design
also gets mislabeled by business owners as multimedia or interactive design.
While designers of interactive media certainly should be skilled in the
techniques and methods described in this text, interactive media is almost
always technologically centered rather than human centered. The majority of
professional multimedia development is constrained to a specific software
package and the capabilities associated with that, rather than centered
around the constraints of an end user. For example, a recent job posting for
a "Manager, Interactive Creative" position requires "Adobe Photoshop, Adobe
ImageReady, Adobe Illustrator, Flash, HTML, DHTML. Ability to learn and
adapt to new technologies and software. Familiar with Macromedia
Dreamweaver, Flash and other similar programs. Understand and stay current
with the capabilities of internet-related technologies like: style-sheets,
dynamic HTML, server-side programming, Javascript and Java." These are
technologies, and while the person who ends up filling this position most
likely understands the value of human-centered design, the job description
implies a company culture that is strongly computing-centered. This
tool-centeredness seems to indicate that a Design problem can be "fixed" by
simply providing the right set of skills. In fact, the process of Design
requires a rigorous methodology combined with this diverse set of skills and
a tremendous amount of passion.

==

Jon Kolko | http://www.thoughtsOnInteraction.com

23 Jul 2007 - 7:49am
Mark Schraad
2006

Geez Peter.. it was a Sunday.

First, I am paraphrasing from memory. To the best of my ability I am trying to convey what I believe was meant. I did not write or name the program - and have not spoken to those responsible it in recent weeks. That being said...

While naming what we do at work has plenty of advantages... differentiation from IA, HCI and other slivers of the silo - as well as lay claim our little corner of design and give great book credits (founder of, namer of, and all that other crap), it is not the sole purpose of a name. Like any taxonomy (who am I talking to after all) or naming convention it is subjective and, one would hope, will change over time.

If you let (for the sake of this conversation and a lake of clarification from the author) this definition speak to a process where users are involved through out and not just in pre-design research or an early prototypes, it serves to differentiate this methodology from what Dan S. calls 'genius design' or what the old studio designers do. There is a huge segment of the design practice that lacking discipline or concern, design strictly for themselves - or in the case of graphic design, for other designers and design annuals. So what would you call it?

Frankly, many of the small things that we do as interactive designers are pushing the practice of design forward and need to be called out. Interaction design, as defined by this organization (IxDA) is obviously more sophisticated than many applications of design (but not all). In the long run this silo-ing can go to far and does not serve the practice of design well. Yes it is all design - but it is a more current flavor of design than was practiced even a short 10-15 years ago.

While you may not agree Peter, I am a bit surprised at your take on this. Extending these advances to other disciplines in design will not lower their worth. Furthering the discussion and seeking an even better set of terms is a good thing, don't you think? Or has it already been completely figured out?

Mark

On Monday, July 23, 2007, at 12:25AM, "Peter Merholz" <peterme at peterme.com> wrote:
>For all the back-patting around the definition of interaction design,
>no one has bothered to define "interactive design," nor has anyone
>meaningfully responded to my comment that "interactive design" is a
>meaningless phrase, if it's actual definition is what Mark said it
>was (because then it would just be called "design").
>
>Will someone bother to please shed light on this matter, and not toss
>glib phraseology that gets us no further?
>
>--peter
>
>On Jul 22, 2007, at 2:26 PM, Jon [GMAIL] wrote:
>
>>
>> This thread is hilarious to me:
>>
>> I ran a program - undergraduate - called Interaction Design at
>> SCAD. SCAD
>> also has Interactive Design (and Gaming), and when I proposed a
>> M.Des in
>> Interaction Design, the administration couldn't deal with the
>> similar names,
>> nevermind the fact that my undergrad students were getting jobs
>> solving real
>> problems at Cooper, IDEO, Ziba, frog, p&g, etc (and the ITGM kids were
>> getting jobs coding flash interfaces for companies you haven't
>> heard of). I
>> don't work at SCAD anymore, but the Interaction M.Des proposal has
>> literally
>> sat in limbo on the Vice President's desk for close to two years
>> because
>> they couldn't figure out how to deal with a strong proposal with a
>> non-obvious-name. (I got sick of trying to logically engage in
>> discourse at
>> the level of "Can't we just change the program name to Multi Media
>> Design?").
>>
>> Interaction Design won't make sense to people until we do a better
>> job of
>> explaining that it has nothing to do with the internet. It's our
>> own fault
>> that people don't understand it.
>>
>>> The label "interactive design" seems purposefully chosen to be
>>> confused with the more commonly understood "interaction design." I
>>> mean, obviously the program knows there's a field of work called
>>> interaction design, which many places offer degrees in, and has
>>> instead chosen the term "interactive design," a concept which, if I
>>> understand it as you're describing it, simply means "design."
>>
>>>> yes, interaction design deals with interactive media, but uh, I
>>>> still
>>>> don't get why they don't call the program "interaction design",
>>>> since 1 it seems to be in parallel more to current IxD programs like
>>>> CMU then to interactive design programs like SCAD and SVA and Art
>>>> School.
>>
>> Jon Kolko | http://www.thoughtsOnInteraction.com

23 Jul 2007 - 10:35am
Dan Saffer
2003

Ah, semantics.

"Interactive" is an adjective, meaning something that can be engaged
with.

"Interactive design" then is the design of things that can be engaged
with.

"Interaction" is (mostly) a noun, which means the engagement between
two or more things.

"Interaction design" then is the design of the (potential) engagement
between two things.

It's a subtle, but meaningful, difference. Interaction design is
broader in scope and, in my mind, about the engagement between
people, mediated by a product, service, or system.

Practically, of course, there is often very little difference between
interactive designers and interaction designers; both are likely
making objects that respond to human input in meaningful ways. I'd
venture to say that all interactive designers are doing interaction
design. But not necessarily (although often) is the reverse true.
Interaction designers can design, for example, workflows in which
there is no "thing" to engage with.

Anyway, that's what I think today, early in the morning, with no
caffeine in me yet. :)

Dan

23 Jul 2007 - 10:57am
heather meadows
2007

So does anyone had a great one-sentence summary of "interaction
design" they use to explain the job to, say, their parents' friends?
I can never think of how to break it down easily in smalltalk.

23 Jul 2007 - 12:34pm
andrew_hinton a...
2007

Leisa: I think this is the best explanation yet.

Nobody sat down in committee and decided how to use 'interactive' and
'interaction' in a clear way to distinguish anything usefully. They've
emerged through use.

---
Andrew Hinton
Vanguard User Experience Group
personal: inkblurt.com

"Leisa Reichelt" <leisa.reichelt at gmail.com>
Sent by: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
07/23/2007 02:53 AM

To
"Christian Crumlish" <xian at pobox.com>
cc
discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Interactive or interaction

my experience with this terminology was that 'interactive' design was a
term
used predominantly in agencies to distinguish design for the internet from
other design (graphic design, broadcast design etc.)

interactive was more of a 'department' than it was a skill set, if you
were
a designer that fitted into that department you were an 'interactive
designer'. (developers didn't tend to need distinguishing from the rest of
the agency ;)

within 'interactive design' would be where the real titles would start to
apply - and one of those *might* be an interaction designer. Although, it
would be a rare agency who'd hire a proper interaction designer. They'd
usually get buy with a 'producer', who'd do IA, ID, and often the project
and account management.

in my experience - things have moved on significantly since then, but been
my experience of how it worked in the wild.

I wouldn't have thought it was a relevant question these days. If you're
seeing an advertisement for an 'interactive designer' then you're probably
at risk of working for one of the above mentioned agencies who haven't yet
moved on ;)

________________________
Leisa Reichelt
Disambiguity.com
Contextual Research, User Centred Design & Social Design

leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
+44 778 071 2129
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT. The information contained in this e-mail message, including attachments, is the confidential information of, and/or is the property of, Vanguard. The information is intended for use solely by the individual or entity named in the message. If you are not an intended recipient or you received this in error, then any review, printing, copying, or distribution of any such information is prohibited, and please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail from your system.

23 Jul 2007 - 1:40pm
Alan Cooper
2004

How about "The design of post-industrial business"?

__________
Cooper | design for a digital world
Alan Cooper
alan at cooper.com | www.cooper.com
__________
"Higher density housing offers an inferior lifestyle only if it is
without a community as its setting." -Andres Duany

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
heather meadows
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:57 AM
To: IxDA Discuss
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Interactive or interaction

So does anyone had a great one-sentence summary of "interaction
design" they use to explain the job to, say, their parents' friends?
I can never think of how to break it down easily in smalltalk.
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

23 Jul 2007 - 1:43pm
Peter Merholz
2004

I agree that Leisa had the strongest take on it, but then, I don't
know how a school can offer a program in that hodge podge of evolved
ideas. So I guess I still don't know how what the University of
Kansas is offering differs from interaction design:

"interactive design is defining and creating how consumers interact
with a product. Students will learn how to enhance the usability,
usefulness and desirability of a product for consumers and businesses."
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2007/jul/18/ku_offer_new_masters_degrees/

Though I should probably just shut up now.

--peter

On Jul 23, 2007, at 10:34 AM, andrew_hinton at vanguard.com wrote:

> Leisa: I think this is the best explanation yet.
>
> Nobody sat down in committee and decided how to use 'interactive' and
> 'interaction' in a clear way to distinguish anything usefully.
> They've
> emerged through use.
>
>
> ---
> Andrew Hinton
> Vanguard User Experience Group
> personal: inkblurt.com
>
>
>
>
> "Leisa Reichelt" <leisa.reichelt at gmail.com>
> Sent by: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> 07/23/2007 02:53 AM
>
> To
> "Christian Crumlish" <xian at pobox.com>
> cc
> discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject
> Re: [IxDA Discuss] Interactive or interaction
>
>
>
>
>
>
> my experience with this terminology was that 'interactive' design
> was a
> term
> used predominantly in agencies to distinguish design for the
> internet from
> other design (graphic design, broadcast design etc.)
>
> interactive was more of a 'department' than it was a skill set, if you
> were
> a designer that fitted into that department you were an 'interactive
> designer'. (developers didn't tend to need distinguishing from the
> rest of
> the agency ;)
>
> within 'interactive design' would be where the real titles would
> start to
> apply - and one of those *might* be an interaction designer.
> Although, it
> would be a rare agency who'd hire a proper interaction designer.
> They'd
> usually get buy with a 'producer', who'd do IA, ID, and often the
> project
> and account management.
>
> in my experience - things have moved on significantly since then,
> but been
> my experience of how it worked in the wild.
>
> I wouldn't have thought it was a relevant question these days. If
> you're
> seeing an advertisement for an 'interactive designer' then you're
> probably
> at risk of working for one of the above mentioned agencies who
> haven't yet
> moved on ;)
>
>
> ________________________
> Leisa Reichelt
> Disambiguity.com
> Contextual Research, User Centred Design & Social Design
>
> leisa.reichelt at gmail.com
> +44 778 071 2129
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT. The information contained in this e-mail
> message, including attachments, is the confidential information of,
> and/or is the property of, Vanguard. The information is intended
> for use solely by the individual or entity named in the message. If
> you are not an intended recipient or you received this in error,
> then any review, printing, copying, or distribution of any such
> information is prohibited, and please notify the sender immediately
> by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail from your system.
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

23 Jul 2007 - 1:11pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

It nice to see that even when one leaves a list for three or more years
that when one comes back people are still discussing what the definition
of the job is in the first place.

Ah, progress!

Andrei

23 Jul 2007 - 2:58pm
Dave Malouf
2005

Andrei,
There are some aspects of our jobs that defy definition and frustrate
people. What can I say, but if you look at the really cool archive we
have at beta.ixda.org I think you'll find that in your absense for
the last 2 years (Is that what it is?) there has been more very new
conversations than very old ones like this one. You just have
impeccable timing.

OH! and btw, what would you like to discuss?

I was really excited to see your name pop across my IxDA RSS feed
again. Been too long!

-- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=18494

23 Jul 2007 - 3:13pm
Andrei Herasimchuk
2004

David malouf wrote:
> There are some aspects of our jobs that defy definition and frustrate
> people. What can I say, but if you look at the really cool archive we
> have at beta.ixda.org I think you'll find that in your absense for
> the last 2 years (Is that what it is?) there has been more very new
> conversations than very old ones like this one. You just have
> impeccable timing.

I'll bet. 8^)

Don't know how long its been. When I was on this list before, I was
working on Lightroom at Adobe, the project of which I couldn't speak
publicly about. Now, I'm building Involution which has been fun and hard
in its own right.

I think people have a hard time with the definition of the job for the
same reasons I've said many times over the past decade: Stop trying to
describe what you do and describe what you make. That's the job title.
That's why I still prefer "interface design" because at the end of the
day, that's what I make. Whatever goes into making an interface - icons,
workflow, taxonomies, coding, branding, mockups, prototypes, all of it
-- is what I do. Easy enough imho.

Forward thinking, I'd be happy with "digital product designer" or some
such. Anything but the hodgepodge of usability / interaction /
experience / ia / ux or whatever other jargon is the flavor of the year.

Some things never change I guess, eh?

Andrei

Syndicate content Get the feed