>His claim is that *in the absence of interaction >design* the nature of microprocessors combined with >the nature of engineering-centric approaches will >always produce a system in which the computer-like >properties dominate.
I'm not sure I'd agree entirely with that. As a simple example, those
birthday cards that sing have a microprocessor and a sensor in them, to make
it play when it opens. I doubt any interaction designer ever touched them,
but they are still considered (sold, marketed, used) as birthday cards, even
though they have a little computer in them. The physical properties
But perhaps that's an extreme example. There's probably a difference (or
perhaps a continuum) between objects that are *enhanced* by microprocessors
(the birthday card) and those that are *operated* by microprocessors (the
battleship). If the birthday card crashes, well, it's just a birthday card
and it still works, albeit in a limited way. If the battleship's (or even my
dishwasher's) system crashes, things grind to a halt. Those electric Toyota
Prius cars had software crashes that turned the cars off--sometimes in the
middle of busy highways.