interesting read: Foundations of Interaction Design

7 Sep 2007 - 8:53am
7 years ago
10 replies
581 reads
Jarod Tang
2007

There's some intereting blog from David Malouf:
Foundations of Interaction
Design<http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/foundations-of>

I really doubt, the elements the David memtioned here, compose the
foundation of interaction design ( who has succeed done this ? :) ), but
it's a interesting (or a bit abstract ?) reading.

How could we deepen the understanding of ixd by these elements?
for e.g., the best elements i every read is from cooper's book, (Persona)
Goal, Senario, etc. these elements really depend the understanding of ixd,
as far as i know.
And David's elements, make a bit abstract and confused here, (sorry to say
this. :))

Cheers
-- Jarod

--
IxD for better life style.

http://jarodtang.blogspot.com

Comments

7 Sep 2007 - 9:02am
White, Jeff
2007

Jarod - David actually sent this out a few weeks ago, but it appears there
wasn't much discussion around it.

Seems like what you're thinking of are more about user centered design -
personas, scenarios, etc. The focus of David's article was really the
building blocks of interaction design. A good analogy might be graphic
design, building blocks there would be line, color, shape, space, etc.

Jeff

On 9/7/07, Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There's some intereting blog from David Malouf:
> Foundations of Interaction
> Design<http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/foundations-of>
>
> I really doubt, the elements the David memtioned here, compose the
> foundation of interaction design ( who has succeed done this ? :) ), but
> it's a interesting (or a bit abstract ?) reading.
>
> How could we deepen the understanding of ixd by these elements?
> for e.g., the best elements i every read is from cooper's book, (Persona)
> Goal, Senario, etc. these elements really depend the understanding of ixd,
> as far as i know.
> And David's elements, make a bit abstract and confused here, (sorry to say
> this. :))
>
> Cheers
> -- Jarod
>
>
> --
> IxD for better life style.
>
> http://jarodtang.blogspot.com
>
>

7 Sep 2007 - 9:13am
Jarod Tang
2007

Hi Jeff:

> Jarod - David actually sent this out a few weeks ago, but it appears there
> wasn't much discussion around it.

sorry for re-post it again

Seems like what you're thinking of are more about user centered design -
> personas, scenarios, etc. The focus of David's article was really the
> building blocks of interaction design. A good analogy might be graphic
> design, building blocks there would be line, color, shape, space, etc.

Thanks for your mention, :). I'm still thinking, if this kind of analyziing
should be more care about if it deepen the designer's understanding of the
domain. even for graphics design, if you see the building blocks is line,
color and shape, how the designers benifit from this analyzing? (maybe to
practicle? )

Cheers
-- Jarod

7 Sep 2007 - 9:24am
White, Jeff
2007

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but it's absolutely crucial for
any designer to know the basic components of graphic design. Asking how that
benefits a designer is kind of like asking how knowledge of the strengths
and weaknesses of different building materials benefits an architect.

Your question about how an understanding of the foundations of graphic
design benefits a designer is a really good one. I'm at a loss for how to
articulate an answer though.

Help, someone :-)

On 9/7/07, Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff:
>
> > Jarod - David actually sent this out a few weeks ago, but it appears
> > there wasn't much discussion around it.
>
>
> sorry for re-post it again
>
> Seems like what you're thinking of are more about user centered design -
> > personas, scenarios, etc. The focus of David's article was really the
> > building blocks of interaction design. A good analogy might be graphic
> > design, building blocks there would be line, color, shape, space, etc.
>
>
> Thanks for your mention, :). I'm still thinking, if this kind of
> analyziing should be more care about if it deepen the designer's
> understanding of the domain. even for graphics design, if you see the
> building blocks is line, color and shape, how the designers benifit from
> this analyzing? (maybe to practicle? )
>
> Cheers
> -- Jarod
>

7 Sep 2007 - 10:16am
Oleh Kovalchuke
2006

On 9/7/07, Jeff White <jwhite31 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Your question about how an understanding of the foundations of graphic
> design benefits a designer is a really good one. I'm at a loss for how to
> articulate an answer though.
>
> Help, someone :-)
>
And help we shall.

The knowledge of fundamentals is helpful in these three cases:

1. for design process: when you are at a loss for how to solve a
problem, you might decide to tweak one or two of the fundamentals to move
the problem from the dead point;
2. for design approach, framing: for instance, if you approach
interaction design as design of user time, you focus on the value of user
time more;
3. for design politics: when you need to evaluate, defend design; to
persuade clients - the fundamentals provide you with handy bullet list.

Oleh

--
Oleh Kovalchuke
Interaction Design is the Design of Time
http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm

7 Sep 2007 - 10:33am
Oleh Kovalchuke
2006

Forgotten the power point:

1.
2.
3.
4. When you present your fundamentals as bullet points in a PowerPoint
presentation, it will look very professional. Always harness the persuasive
power of PowerPoint points.

Oleh

On 9/7/07, Oleh Kovalchuke <tangospring at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/7/07, Jeff White <jwhite31 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Your question about how an understanding of the foundations of graphic
> > design benefits a designer is a really good one. I'm at a loss for how
> > to
> > articulate an answer though.
> >
> > Help, someone :-)
> >
> And help we shall.
>
> The knowledge of fundamentals is helpful in these three cases:
>
> 1. for design process: when you are at a loss for how to solve a
> problem, you might decide to tweak one or two of the fundamentals to move
> the problem from the dead point;
> 2. for design approach, framing: for instance, if you approach
> interaction design as design of user time, you focus on the value of user
> time more;
> 3. for design politics: when you need to evaluate, defend design; to
> persuade clients - the fundamentals provide you with handy bullet list.
>
>
> Oleh
>
>
> --
> Oleh Kovalchuke
> Interaction Design is the Design of Time
> http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm
>

--
Oleh Kovalchuke
Interaction Design is the Design of Time
http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm

7 Sep 2007 - 10:37am
Dave Malouf
2005

yea! what Oleh Added works too!

To Phil, we all as designers have to bring some type of form
(communication layer) to the work we do. So maybe it is not line,
color, shape, but as in your case it is probably tone, volume
(loudness), speed, (You work in IVR, right?)

- dave

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the improved ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=20210

7 Sep 2007 - 10:39am
Dave Malouf
2005

Hi Jarod,
I don't mind the repeat posting. Any interest in the article is great by me.

As almost all my previous postings on Boxes & Arrows, I tend to want
to provoke conversation more than lecture a complete thought so I'm
doubly glad that Jarod pulled the conversation here. (BTW, to find my
others stuff you have to look for my birth name of "David Heller".)

Jarod,
I find it interesting that you find it abstract and that abstract is a
problem. I find one of the problems with IxD is that most
practitioners are so totally focused on practice that they really
don't know what it is they are actually doing.

Within any creative discipline there are 3 attributes that need to all
work together within the practitioner:
1) Theory - knowing what makes up the bits. melody, Rhythm, tone,
scales, orchestration, instrumentation
line, form, color, type, negative space
line, shape, materials/texture, volume, space,

2) Recognition - being able to appreciate good and bad application of
those theoretical elements

3) Execution - making it happen.

I learned this in my drawing class with the simple drawing of (1,000,000) cubes.
You need to first know what makes up a cube. Straightness of lines,
horizon points, dimentionality, eye-play. Then you need to be able to
recognize when those things are done well/correctly. Finally, you need
to be able to do it. (easier said than done for me).

So back to your question, what I'm trying to provoke in the article is
a discussion of what the heck are we doing as interaction designers.
What are we manipulating. Where does what we do differ from the other
design disciplines.

First, I make the clear distinction between form and interaction. Form
is the communication layer that elicits interaction, but is not the
interaction layer itself.

Then I break down those elements was I best understand them today. I
realize (especially after trying to include these in my IxD class @
SmartExperience.org this past week) that these are really hard to
communicate b/c they are so abstract--especially abstraction.

but people can read the article for the rest.

What I want to answer which was sorta cut from the introduction is
WHY? Why do we know any foundations? This is where Jeff White is
getting stuck and to be honest, for interaction design I can see why
again people focus so strongly on their day-to-day (they haven't been
educated in design foundations at all -- a problem I have w/ our
career development of late) so they don't get it.

It comes back to that discussion a few weeks ago about studio and what
separates design from a career and education system from other
creative disciplines like engineering. Exploration!

If you take these ideas and create a matrix of values against them and
rules for aesthetics and similar criteria you can then create an
education system around them which enhances and builds the
discipline's formality of practice.

Let's look at color in form-based disciplines.

Well I can take a single web page and play with a gazilliion different
palettes, right? How do I come to the conclusion that X color is
right? Does it feel right? Is there warmth or coolness to the scheme?
What does it communicate. Well color theory is abundant in many design
disciplines. And depending on your design brief you will tend towards
one set of colors more than others.

then there is the cognitive side of color. X colors are more legible
when juxtaposed than others for example. Some color combinations cause
fuzziness, other colors cause starkness.

Well, how you think about the IxD foundations will have similar
effects on the aesthetic and well even utilitarian aspects of our
designs.

Not thinking about these or similar elements will greatly effect the
total solution. Playing and experimenting with them, will lead to a
series of different solutions.

I hope that clarifies, or provokes even more!

-- dave

--
David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

7 Sep 2007 - 10:47am
White, Jeff
2007

Thank you Dave! And, might be semantics here, but don't forget
communication, a necessary skill for any designer for sure, and I don't care
what medium they work in. This would be the skill I was poorly lacking this
morning when trying to articulate how an understanding of fundamentals
benefits designers. Maybe a 5th attribute should be caffeine.

"Within any creative discipline there are 3 attributes that need to all
work together within the practitioner:
1) Theory - knowing what makes up the bits. melody, Rhythm, tone,
scales, orchestration, instrumentation
line, form, color, type, negative space
line, shape, materials/texture, volume, space,

2) Recognition - being able to appreciate good and bad application of
those theoretical elements

3) Execution - making it happen."

On 9/7/07, David Malouf <dave.ixd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jarod,
> I don't mind the repeat posting. Any interest in the article is great by
> me.
>
> As almost all my previous postings on Boxes & Arrows, I tend to want
> to provoke conversation more than lecture a complete thought so I'm
> doubly glad that Jarod pulled the conversation here. (BTW, to find my
> others stuff you have to look for my birth name of "David Heller".)
>
> Jarod,
> I find it interesting that you find it abstract and that abstract is a
> problem. I find one of the problems with IxD is that most
> practitioners are so totally focused on practice that they really
> don't know what it is they are actually doing.
>
> Within any creative discipline there are 3 attributes that need to all
> work together within the practitioner:
> 1) Theory - knowing what makes up the bits. melody, Rhythm, tone,
> scales, orchestration, instrumentation
> line, form, color, type, negative space
> line, shape, materials/texture, volume, space,
>
> 2) Recognition - being able to appreciate good and bad application of
> those theoretical elements
>
> 3) Execution - making it happen.
>
> I learned this in my drawing class with the simple drawing of (1,000,000)
> cubes.
> You need to first know what makes up a cube. Straightness of lines,
> horizon points, dimentionality, eye-play. Then you need to be able to
> recognize when those things are done well/correctly. Finally, you need
> to be able to do it. (easier said than done for me).
>
> So back to your question, what I'm trying to provoke in the article is
> a discussion of what the heck are we doing as interaction designers.
> What are we manipulating. Where does what we do differ from the other
> design disciplines.
>
> First, I make the clear distinction between form and interaction. Form
> is the communication layer that elicits interaction, but is not the
> interaction layer itself.
>
> Then I break down those elements was I best understand them today. I
> realize (especially after trying to include these in my IxD class @
> SmartExperience.org this past week) that these are really hard to
> communicate b/c they are so abstract--especially abstraction.
>
> but people can read the article for the rest.
>
> What I want to answer which was sorta cut from the introduction is
> WHY? Why do we know any foundations? This is where Jeff White is
> getting stuck and to be honest, for interaction design I can see why
> again people focus so strongly on their day-to-day (they haven't been
> educated in design foundations at all -- a problem I have w/ our
> career development of late) so they don't get it.
>
> It comes back to that discussion a few weeks ago about studio and what
> separates design from a career and education system from other
> creative disciplines like engineering. Exploration!
>
> If you take these ideas and create a matrix of values against them and
> rules for aesthetics and similar criteria you can then create an
> education system around them which enhances and builds the
> discipline's formality of practice.
>
> Let's look at color in form-based disciplines.
>
> Well I can take a single web page and play with a gazilliion different
> palettes, right? How do I come to the conclusion that X color is
> right? Does it feel right? Is there warmth or coolness to the scheme?
> What does it communicate. Well color theory is abundant in many design
> disciplines. And depending on your design brief you will tend towards
> one set of colors more than others.
>
> then there is the cognitive side of color. X colors are more legible
> when juxtaposed than others for example. Some color combinations cause
> fuzziness, other colors cause starkness.
>
> Well, how you think about the IxD foundations will have similar
> effects on the aesthetic and well even utilitarian aspects of our
> designs.
>
> Not thinking about these or similar elements will greatly effect the
> total solution. Playing and experimenting with them, will lead to a
> series of different solutions.
>
> I hope that clarifies, or provokes even more!
>
> -- dave
>
> --
> David Malouf
> http://synapticburn.com/
> http://ixda.org/
> http://motorola.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
>

7 Sep 2007 - 10:53am
White, Jeff
2007

And thanks to Oleh as well! I'm going to the coffee machine.

On 9/7/07, Jeff White <jwhite31 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you Dave!...

7 Sep 2007 - 1:31pm
Phillip Hunter
2006

Doris,

> All designer might not be designing in the 'graphical medium' ...
What does that mean?

My voice interaction designs come to life in the spoken word. No graphical
representation. Of course I use visual tools to build design specs, but the
end user doesn't see that. They hear, they talk.

Phillip

Syndicate content Get the feed