IDSA's Human Interaction creates the Interaction Design "Archetype"

24 Aug 2010 - 6:39pm
1 year ago
2 replies
787 reads
Dave Malouf
2005

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ayQKL1bpcu1hiEB4PtnkW0TH2GTFzf0UCcyXQ3WDlZE&pli=1

The above link is to a google doc (odd publishing platform if ya ask me).

The document outlines 3 levels of practice within the role of Interaction Designer as defined by the Human Interaction Community inside the Industrial Design Society of America, IDSA. 

As someone who's been actively working with this community I was a bit surprised this was published like this. But heck, its as good an attempt as any out there today. I do think its going to upset some people b/c of what it assumes about the role of designer.

Let the games continue/commence.

BTW, I would say that a professional community does often try to define oneself, and I wonder how much longer we as a community can focus on the discipline and not on the people? It is the people who we serve the most after all, right?

-- dave

Comments

25 Aug 2010 - 7:29am
Matt Nish-Lapidus
2007

This is really interesting.. and I probably like it (generally) because it aligns with my existing view of IxD :)

Some things that I like about it:

- Includes skills that make IxDs well rounded designers (visual design competency, craftsmanship, etc)

- Has a clear path for learning and growing as a designer and in a professional career

- Includes understanding of technology required to build the designs (increasing with levels)

- Emphasis on collaboration

 

Some things I don't love about it:

- Use of the phrase "Rock Star" for the most senior level. This is a concept I'd like to see disappear.

- Career path is still anchored in the traditional practitioner -> manager progression. We need room for very senior practitioners.. and not every great designer makes a good manager.

Matt (@emenel)

25 Aug 2010 - 10:05am
Dmitry Nekrasovski
2004

I agree with Matt - there are a few things to like here, the emphasis on cross-skilling, collaboration, and communication in particular.

Overall, though, it seems like yet another semi-arbitrary mapping of skills and abilities to role levels, coming from the perspective of one specific niche within the UX field (in this case, I assume it's full-service design agencies with both UX and industrial design capabilities).

Questions I have about this list include:

  • Why does the "rock star" level (like Matt, I am annoyed by the use of this term) not include thought leadership/original contributions to the evolving practice of the field? Also, why does it require being in a management role on an orgchart?
  • Why does Entry level include advanced competencies in graphic/visual/motion design, and yet basic-level competency in programming is only expected at the Senior level?
  • Why does the only nod to business understanding in the whole list (#4 for Senior) focus on costs and not revenues? Isn't an understanding of how good design can drive revenues and profits critical to making an impact as a senior/principal level designer?
  • Where are facilitation and evangelism on this list? If you can't facilitate collaboration in a non-management role and evangelize good design practices, your impact will be limited.
  • Where are the points that address the ability to actually deliver (to "ship", to use Seth Godin's term)? All these competencies are fine and great, but if you can't put them together to engender good design in the projects you work on and organizations you work with, how can you be considered a successful designer?

Dmitry

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:46 AM, emenel wrote: > This is really interesting.. and I probably like it (generally) because it > aligns with my existing view of IxD :) > > Some things that I like about it: > > - Includes skills that make IxDs well rounded designers (visual > design competency, craftsmanship, etc) > > - Has a clear path for learning and growing as a designer and in a > professional career > > - Includes understanding of technology required to build the designs > (increasing with levels) > > - Emphasis on collaboration > > > > Some things I don't love about it: > > - Use of the phrase "Rock Star" for the most senior level. This is a concept > I'd like to see disappear. > > - Career path is still anchored in the traditional practitioner -> manager > progression. We need room for very senior practitioners.. and not every > great designer makes a good manager. > > Matt (@emenel) > > (((P

Syndicate content Get the feed