IxD definition WAS Interaction Design for ESL Textbooks?
12 Sep 2007 - 6:36pm
7 years ago
"I don't want to delve too deeply into semantic debate about the meaning of
"interaction," but when a customer is making choices (input) and a company
is responding (feedback), that seems to quack like the proverbial duck of a
designed interaction. "
That's an excellent point, and you're right of course. It is most definitely
an interaction. But this is plain vanilla business stuff to me. You could
easily design a business model, business process, customer service strategy
as well as the technology structure to support it w/o any notion of some of
the fundamentals of interface/graphic/interaction design: line, space,
color, shape, time, metaphor, etc.
As IxD'ers we have to stop somewhere don't we? Can we design the way our
government interacts with us? If so, I'm down.
On 9/12/07, Patrick Grizzard <gamutant at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Fair enough. I guess what I'm interested in is the assumption that > "interactive" inherently means digital, technological, mechanical. This does > seem implicit in the IxDA definition, and for the purposes of promoting IxD > to technologists, executives, academics, etc. it's probably useful. > On the other hand, it could be unnecessarily limiting, as I alluded to > with the example of service design. I don't want to be constrained to > designing a single digital artifact if it sits at the center of a larger > network of offline services. I want to design all the processes and > communication so that the technology artifact integrates with them > seamlessly. I don't want to delve too deeply into semantic debate about the > meaning of "interaction," but when a customer is making choices (input) and > a company is responding (feedback), that seems to quack like the proverbial > duck of a designed interaction. > > > > On Sep 12, 2007, at 4:04 PM, Jeff White wrote: > > An awesome book - I had a blast reading it. But, those words are organized > on the page in a totally static way. They will never ever change unless you > burn the page or something like that. It's totally up to the cognitive > processes of the reader to digest the words and derive meaning from them, as > with any printed work. There is no interaction there, at least not one that > matches with what the IxDA has defined as interaction design. If you could > touch a word and change its' position on the page, then yeah I'll buy that. > But I don't think we've reached that level of technology yet. Or maybe we > have and I just wasn't paying attention. :-) > > > > On 9/12/07, Patrick Grizzard < gamutant at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 12, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Jeff White wrote: > > > > Ha! Ok, I thought someone on this list would say something a lot quicker > > > > than this :-) > > > > So a book is interactive? I guess the argument there is that you > > interact > > with the pages, right? You grab them, turn them, etc. So does this mean > > every single thing on the face of the planet is interactive and thus the > > province of IxD'ers? That is not in line with the many recent debates > > re: > > the definition of design, IxD and the role of interaction designers. > > > > I disagree - the book is not interactive. Yes you could stretch and say > > you're interacting with the subject matter via a book. But how does the > > subject matter respond to your action? That is what IxD is all about, > > no? > > Action/response. I've never a subject matter respond to me when I read a > > book about it. > > > > > > Just to play devil's advocate for a moment: The subject matter of a > > standard textbook might not respond in the way the feedback display of a > > digital device responds, but does this mean that books are entirely passive > > (without taking the opposing view, articulated above, that then EVERYTHING > > is interactive)? > > > > Does an artifact have to blink or beep or change states in order for an > > "interaction" to be said to have taken place? Take, for example, a work of > > experimental fiction like Mark Danielewski's *House of Leaves*, in which > > the typography and layout mirror events in the narrative (e.g. - as the > > protagonist gets lost in a maze the text and its footnotes begin to merge > > until the distinction between narrative and annotation becomes totally > > confused.). The reader must flip back and forth to reconstruct the fractured > > narrative and bring coherence/meaning to the story. How is this any less > > "interactive" than reading the New York Time online? > > > > Setting aside the formal properties of print, what about the overall > > experience of the class that the books is designed to facilitate? The > > in-class activities and participation, homework assignments, study methods, > > quizzes and tests, etc.? As designers of experiences, do these not fall > > within our realm, at least to some degree? The company I work for is > > currently trying to position itself to do more service design, focusing not > > only on the design of the artifact that the user interacts with, but on the > > overall experience and context within which that interaction unfolds. I'm > > not sure I see how this is vastly different from designing a class > > curriculum... > > > > > > Patrick > > > > >