Talk:Interaction design/Archive 1

Archive 1

Who define IxD stand for Interaction Design?

I saw IxD appear everywhere in the paragraphs, I just wondering why the writer use this term. As I know IxDA is the short form (even a logo) of Interaction Design Association, it can't refrain to make people think the intention behind is a kind of marketing or promotion strategy.Uale 14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IxDA refers to the organisation (Interaction Design Association) that represents Interaction Design (IxD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.72.66.20 (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a marketing strategy. The user experience/interaction design community seems to have struggled over the last few words for defining the disciplines and subdisciplines and using distinct acronyms for them, in my experience. The IxD acronym is distinct from the ID acronym that has historically meant Industrial Design. Just seems to be what the community has rested upon generally, not specific to any one organization. This is my POV though. I'm a freelance IxD professional. Owlmonkey 05:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why use an acronym at all? "Interaction Design" is not such a burnen to read... why not put the user first and try to address none-designer here?

History

I dont agree that Crampton-Smith and Moggridge should be the only names cited in the "history" section. Seems like self-promotion to me. Interaction design has a long, long history that has its roots in many different design disciplines and academic fields.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.98.8 (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Feel free to add more. I included Moggridge and Crampton-Smith because they were figures I was familiar with and who seemed important enough to belong in the article. I'm sure there are others, so please, expand the section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DMellis (talk • contribs) 10:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I've commented out the sentence on the book. It comes across as very promotional, and I can't think of a way to rewrite it that does not that fits the context of History. I'm leaving in the book reference, figuring that we'll figure a better way to introduce the book. --Ronz 23:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I first heard the term "interaction design" coming out of Bruce Tognazzini's efforts to give a proper name to the profession that people used to call "sort-of-interface-design-but-there's-more to-it-than-that". See this column from 2003. Forlornturtle 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase was used a lot in discussions of Kapor's 1990 "A Software Design Manifesto" [1] and the creation of the short-lived Association for Software Design, so the Moggridge information fits being about the same time. --Ronz 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For history issues, i should say it's not a either-or's view, maybe both. And since here, we discuss the history issues, IMHO, why the problem raised at that time is more important as the names. We can list the names with the time here, this will give a more object description. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jarodtang (talk • contribs) 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Some of the details in the paragraph on history differ from what is contained in pp.467-470 of Sharp, Rogers & Preece (2007) Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. For example, SR&P say that Gillian founded the Computer Related Design Department at the Royal College of Art in 1991, not 1989 as shown in the Wiki article. SR&P also say that Gillian was the Director of IDII from 2001 to 2006 and that in 2006 she moved to IUAV University of Architecture and Design in Venice to continue the work she started in Ivrea. The Wiki article says she moved to Milan in October 2005 and merged with Domus Academy. Could someone clarify which is correct. JteB (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the RCA, the course was founded in 1990 (see http://www.rca.ac.uk/Default.aspx?ContentID=160437&GroupID=160436&CategoryID=36538). The article mentions that IDII moved to milan, not Crampton Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.72.206 (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Interaction Design is not User Interface Design

IxD implies behavior, with no regard for medium. UI Design implies a computer. There is a huge difference. 68.51.166.8 23:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)jk

can interaction design be explained as behaviour based design?

The community working in this field is driving towards a common understanding of the terms "UI design," "interaction design," "information architecture," "usability" and "user experience." That understanding holds that "UI Design" and "IxD" are distinct but related disciplines. Respecting the learning in that community would mean keeping these topics distinct.

Who's doing IxD that doesn't use the medium of a computer that doesn't already have a more descriptive title? --Ronz 19:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have so far only met two types of people who call themselves "interaction designers":

1. Those who try to come up with new ways in which people might interact with technology, be it through graphical interfaces, with physical products or with architectural spaces. This is often not product-driven but rather an experimental, research-like activity.

2. Those who design software and electronic devices with usability in mind, but based mainly on current practices. These might traditionally be called interface designers, but that sounds too much like moving buttons around forms; many people associate "interface design" with making a product "pretty" towards the end of its development. "Interaction design" sounds less graphical and implies a deeper, more conceptual design activity.

Whether or not people argue against a particular usage of "interaction design", this article should reflect how the term is being used in the real world, not what one group of people wants it to mean. Forlornturtle 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Can this topic be any more jargon-laden?

As an interaction designer, I was of the thought that interaction design is about making things easier for users to use. This topic does everything but that. How about losing the scientific journal vibe and going with something anyone can understand? Also, I'm suprised the article doesn't mention any pioneers in the field like Bill Moggridge or Alan Cooper. User:Anonymous|Anonymous]] 16:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I second that! --193.226.189.115 11:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too, especially about the pioneers. Frankamand

I have to agree here also.

The initial statement or definition just doesn't work for me -- would it be accurate to modify it so that people can understand it more easily?

User Interaction Design is a discipline that aims to create and improve interactions or representational dialogs that people have with products, environments, and communications encountered in their everyday experience.

I just think a definition should be easier to understand than the title - Will anyone know what a "representational dialog" is?

JohnDilworth 06:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this thread. The trouble with interaction design as a term is that some academics love to argue about what it means in a dry, abstract manner. Conversely, in industry, you often see the terms 'interaction design', 'user-experience design', 'usability' and 'information architecture' bandied about in different ways depending on the organisation or person saying them. If you look at the methods and practical details - which this article should do but doesn't - you can side-step these definitional issues to an extent.

Under the Alternative design and evaluation heading, what does "problem space" mean? I can't find any wikipedia entry on it at all. Possibly Problem domain? 81.155.179.69 (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It means "the set of all possible solutions". I think it's used here as a metaphor for the search space in a search algorithm, since design solutions in interaction design are not specified in such detail so as to use a search algorithm to explore them. Probably you're right and problem domain would be a better link here. Diego (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed cleanup tag, but what about copyvio?

I wikified this article today, and removed the cleanup tag since lack of wikification seemed to be the problem, but I'm not sure about the large chunk called working definition attributed to the Interaction Designer Mailing List. I'm not sure if there should be a copyvio tag applied since this was a cut and paste. I'll contact the author and politely ask about it for now. Spalding 16:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

User interface design merge?

I had just got done writing a bunch of new content for the user interface design page with the purpose of merging in the user interface engineering page when I found this page. ugh. Obviously the two terms user interface design and interaction design are fairly interchangable and the content has a bunch of overlap. The sticky part is that they are both writen in very different ways. Personally I agree with Anon up there that the current interaction design article is a bit on the unreadable jargon-laden level and it reads more like a lame marketing brochure then an encyclopedia entry. And obviously any attempt at merging should result in a more wikified encyclopedic article. Anyone else have an opinion as to the best course of action: no-merge, merge this way, merge that way? — Headlouse 08:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad thought to merge... however interaction design is a SUB-discipline of interface design. It's worth having it's own article. — Juhan Sonin 02:18, 28.Nov.08 —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

Beware of the "obviously" assertions. Although they overlap, actually these are nuances that make ID and UID two different concepts. As used by practicioners, UI design centers around the correct usage of computer interface technologies (webpages, widget toolkits, model-view-controller architectures) while interaction design is applied to every industrial product (door knobs, lemon squeezers, etc). I vote for keeping them separate, and expand both articles in those different directions. Diego (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(Actually, this definition makes user interface design a sub-discipline of interaction design, not the other way around). Diego (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge Musings

Ask your self, does user interface = interaction? Can there be any kind of interaction that does not use the user interface? Doesn't interaction imply interfacing with the user?

The problem really comes into play when organizations confuse all of the different labels and make arbitrary lines of responsibility. For example:

1. What color is the button?

2. What does the button say?

3. What does the button do?

4. Why is the button there?

5. Why is the page there?

6. What am I trying to do again?

These questions show lots of different potential "design" roles. More elgantly displayed here: http://www.jjg.net/elements/pdf/elements.pdf

Is a User Experience Designer different than UI Designer or Interaction Designer? Can you have an experience unrelated to the Interaction? Is Interaction and Experience synonyms? Maybe User Experience and Interaction Design and UI Design should all be merged?

The subtlties should be addressed, but my vote is to merge the topics and discuss them inline.

IxD is a complex field that is related to but definitely separate from UI Design

UI Design is not about interaction or behavior, but about presentation. Yes, presentation impacts the effectiveness of the underlying structures of behavior, but there are many ways to present the same behaviors.

Interaction Design as first coined by Mr. Verplank and Mr. Moggridge oh so long ago was not just about software, unlike the tradition of UI Design, but about physical objects. Would you call a remote control or a dashboard a User Interface? Of course not. UI Design has that limitation. [ed. Consider TUI (Tangible User Interface) versus GUI (Graphical User Interface), yes a remote control is a user interface]

What about using sound as the I/O device for interaction, what about embedded systems that use auditory, sensory light, biometrics, etc. that never have even physical devices that you manipulate w/ your hands.

There is a new and rising organization dedicated to the advancement of this discipline as part of the larger User Experience Community. Just like there is visual design, usability, behavioral research, and information architecture there is also interaction design. And there will probably be even newer disciplines as we learn more about how these systems need to be designed.

I completely disagreee with your statement that, “UI design is not about interaction or behavior.” As a working UI designer (mainly web based), I design for the users behavior all the time; often before any thought is put in presentation. And actually yes I would (and have) used the term user interface to talk about a dashboard a user interface and I know other professional designers that do the same.
You make a good arguement that user interface systems are more variant than most people realize. However this is not an arguement that the difference between interaction design and user interface design is more than just simple semantics. And if it is just simeple semantics, which I personally think it is, then that is a good reason to just merge the two. —Headlouse 20:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a net benefit in merging the two. Furthermore, they're very different. Interaction design includes UI design, yes, but involves more than just the screen, or the interface for that matter. Interaction design needs to handle user interactions with one another, and those would be difficult topics to merge into UI design. FWIW, I even vote for a new section to be called "social interaction design," which would cover communication technologies, social networking apps, wifi apps, and the design of other social media. adrian 08:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC);Adrian 10 December 2005

Definitions approach

These definitions would probably be approved by the Donald Norman school of thought:

User Interface: Anything designed for interaction between a user and a system.

Interaction: Anything stimulating any of the 5 senses of the user or providing input to the system.

User: Anything NOT a system.

Application Programming Interface: Anything designed for ineraction between more than one system (or parts in a system).

Examples of User Interface:

TV remote control

Thermostat

Amazon.com

Shower Faucets

Voicemail

Handles on a swinging door

Therefore, User Interface Design and Interaction Design are synonymous. User Interface Design is designing for the purpose of Interaction.

---

Interface Design is a sub-set of Interaction Design

Interaction Design isn't limited to devices that require an interface. UbiComp, Physical computing, Pervasive Computing can all have different levels of interaction. Interface Designers do not design how people interact with these things, and more importantly they do not design how those things interact with people.

All in all, Interface Design is a sub-section of Interaction Design, not the otherway around. ---

Removing the merge tags

Most of the discussion seems to favor keeping them seperate and for the most part at this point I am convinced that there is a tangible difference so I am removing the merge tags - Headlouse 08:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Argument Distinction of Disciplines in Article

IMHO this discussion should be reflected in the article. Where does the difference between UI Design and UxD come from? What's their relationship with Usability Engineering? I have here two books, Usability Engineering [Rosson & Carroll] about HCI and Designing the User Interface [Schneiderman & Plaisant]. When compared with an overview of Usability Engineering methods (http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/methods.htm) the former emphasis the requirement analysis and test & measure phases, while the UI book aims especially upon the actual design and implementation techniques. If these topics will be kept separate at Wikipedia, its distinction should be clear.

Ubiquitous computing is for example on page 372 of the 4th (international) edition of Schneiderman's (already mentioned) book about User Interface Design. A separation of these topics should be argumented.

PS: Don't omit the User. It's User Interface Design and User Interaction Design, or we are talking about different animals.

Andy 12:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Social Interaction Design

Both Interaction design and Social interaction design need a lot of work. I think Social interaction design isn't written like a wikipedia article and there are far too many external links. I think the Bibliography is the the main content to move over here. I think the intent of Social interaction design is more in line with Social software. In the US, I haven't heard of Soc. I. D., Social software is the term used. So, I guess in the end, I see the biblio moved here, SID deleted with some context possibly merged to this or Social software. Clubmarx | Talk 17:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm for the merge, though I'd rather see social interaction design, interaction design, and user interface design all merged together. I agree with the connection between social software and SocID noted above, though Collaborative_software was my first thought. The difference is that here we're discussing the design of such software (and other artifacts) rather than focusing on the artifacts themselves. I also think this is part of the confusion between interaction design and user interface design: some people think of ui design as the design of the ui elements of a product (or some limited portion of the design of the ui, especially the visual aspects), while others think similarly of interaction design, that it is the design of the interactive portions of a product. It's an argument over semantics with many on each side ignorant of the multiple uses, and history of uses, of these phrases. (Ronz 19:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

Lango promo link

Could the anon person that added the Lango link back in please explain? Unless he is at the same level as Nielsen and Tog, I don't see why this link belongs in this section - especially since there is no community forums nor any news in the site. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid Clubmarx | Talk 02:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See Also, Bibliography & External Links

These sections are far too large. Maybe each could be trimmed down to a dozen or so items? --Ronz 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevant articles on what is and is not appropriate content: WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM --Ronz 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple of people have added Cooper back in to the bibliography. Does anyone want to back it? I've never seen a positive review of it by anyone knowledgeable. Personally, I've only read the first edition, which is a long factless ad for Alan when he was first starting out. --Ronz 14:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The second edition is much improved and really is one of the standard texts in the field.--dansaffer

Perhaps it is indicative of the state of interaction design --Ronz 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed ref w/ spam link to first edition. Really, the first edition is horrible. --Ronz 15:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Should the education sources be added back in? --Ronz 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Education sources violate WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:NOT. --Ronz 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone against removal of all entries in See Also that are not design disciplines? It would trim the list down, making it more focused on the article topic. --Ronz 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed the list down. Might have been overkill. --Ronz 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Bibliography goes, if an editor isn't introducing a new entry with corresponding content from that entry, the entry violates WP:EL unless the editor can show what content was obtained from that entry. --Ronz 15:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:EL states that "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article" should be linked to. I think this entry's bibliography serves more as "further reading" than "references" and should therefore include works whose content doesn't appear in the entry (and possibly renamed to "further reading" to clarify its purpose). DMellis 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We've got an extremely large Bibliography, absolutely no references at all, and people just keep adding to the Bibliography. I'm removing it. --Ronz 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring some of the entries from the former bibliography as a new "References" section. These are works that do provide support and exposition of the concepts discussed in the article. In doing this, I'm relying in part on this advice from WP:Citing sources: "If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject". DMellis 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Bill Moggridge: Designing Interactions, ISBN 0262134748, which was added by Micahalp, to place it here for discussion. --Ronz 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I just added it back in. Since Bill did coin the term "interaction design" and his book seems destined to be part of the canon for that reason alone, I'd say it should be included. We're down to only a handful of books left.--dansaffer

Sounds like an interesting book, though it's mostly interviews. My primary concern is that it was just published in October of this year, and of course nothing else in the article is being changed so it's not actually being used as a reference. Promotional on two counts I think. --Ronz 15:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The working definition of Interaction Design (Copying)

The working definition of interaction design are probably copied from Interaction Design Association?

Maybe we should consider rewriting that part?

Ben Cheng 10:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The IXDA's definition wasn't what I was hoping or looking for. I think of "User Interface" is the human interacting with the machine. I'm interested in research on the human interacting through a machine to another human. "User Interface" design is human-machine interface/interaction (HMI), like the pilot with the instruments. Is there a research group for human-machine-human (HMH) interaction, such as occurs here at Wikipedia? Any pointers appreciated in advance. 66.213.90.2 16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)HMH [P.S. first time trying tildes, hope they work]

Lots. Most of it is computer-related such as Collaborative software Computer supported cooperative work Computer mediated communication Social software. --Ronz 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Robot & Social Interaction Design

These seem like obscure terms that may not belong in this entry; I removed them from the history section. If they should be including, perhaps they belong in a separate section describing specialized areas of interaction design. DMellis 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Social Interaction Design is a section merged from what was once it's own article. Yes, it could use some work to not appear as just an addon to this article. --Ronz 21:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

More Page Clean-Up Items

I really think that both Human-Robot interactions and From User-centric to practice-oriented design sections should be removed or turned into a much, much briefer mentions. The "From User-centric to practice-oriented design" section in particular seems to be just academic jargon with very little illumination into interaction design.

Definitely. These seem like sideline topics that don't deserve this much space. DMellis 10:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we remove the cleanup tag now? The article now presents a reasonable (if a bit short) overview of interaction design and doesn't seem to retain any particularly egregious flaws. DMellis 13:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Universal Application of Interaction Design as a Science

Since we're trying to clean up this article, I found the inclusion of this uncited and promotional section especially inappropriate. All it is proposing is that interaction design grow up and become human factors/erognomics. --Ronz 15:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, it is saying that Interaction Design leave behind human factors/ergonomics and become a real science that is applicable to all fields of study. Doctor Octagon 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noting the discussion. Human factors is real science, applicable to all fields of study. Perhaps it doesn't emphasize aesthetics as much as many industrial designers would like, especially those whose schooling emphasized form over function. It certainly over-emphasizes those areas where human factors has been so successful: physical ergonomics and error prevention. Perhaps you could help us with the cleanup here, maybe concisely include something from Universal design, maybe cite more reliable sources, especially ones that aren't spam? --Ronz 02:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that while there are some Laws (Fitts', Hicks', etc.), interaction design won't ever be a science. It's a craft or an art, where the outcome is subjective. That argument aside, I really don't think this section illuminates anything about interaction design and instead just clutters up this entry. --dansaffer 24 August 2006

History (again)

I think we need to be careful to use and cite sources for the history section. One useful reference, sadly without references of its own: http://www.marcrettig.com/writings/rettig.interactionDesignHistory.2.03.pdf

Designing Interactions

I'm reluctantly considering removing the website and book ref, but would like a discussion. First, the reference was added without any content changes by an anonymous editor as that editor's sole contribution to the wiki. Second, the book was published October 2006. Third, the website is definitely for promotion of the book, though the interviews are valuable. Basically, we're violating WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:NOT. --Ronz 15:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed, along with Designing for Interaction which was introduced by the author prior to its publication date of July 18, 2006 [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Doh! Wow these bots are fast. --Ronz 18:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This book is a comprehensive work by a prominent figure in the field. It discusses many of the concepts listed in the general steps of interaction design (and even a few that aren't). It provides excellent case studies of interaction design work and interviews with many other key practioners. Not only does it serve as a reference for much of this article, it provides excellent further reading and deserves to be listed in the references section. I'm putting it back. If you'd still like to remove it, please explain why here first. Thanks. DMellis 08:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be a useful reference, only that it was not being used as a reference. --Ronz 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add to the discussion by saying that this book is a seminal work on the topic, so would be very useful in this context, even if it is not a reference to a specific fact.--Multikev 23:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree. The book is rather general and doesn't have the depth and important definitions and methods that the books from Cooper and Goodwin have. I've read all these 3 + others. -A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlerscout (talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Kansei Engineering

I moved this from the lead where it was linking from "emotional factors" to the See also section because designing for emotional factors has been a tradition in design disciplines long before Kansei Engineering. Perhaps it should be put in a more prominent position if Moggridge found it to be a primary influence. --Ronz 17:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)