[IxDA Discuss] "Elements of Interaction Design"

[David Heller]

Jonas,


> But I would certainly not develop a curriculum around it, if that is
> taken to mean a module on Motion, followed by modules on
> Space, Time,
> Appearance, and so on.

Are you familiar w/ the Pratt's cirriculum on Industrial Design? I have had
a cursory experience with it and found it to be like what you describe you
wouldn't do. The first year of the MA program is structured around the
aspects or what they call foundations. Whole studios are spent exploring
volume for example, then space, then color, etc. Looking at the output of
these studios, I felt them to be quite powerful tools for the next step of
engaging into more real project work. I have been trying to explore in my
mind what such a program would be like if applied to IxD. I know that not
all Ind. Des. Schools work this way and that Pratt is sometimes considered
to be an outlyer, but the Reed school of Foundation is definitely a big
influence on me anyway.

I have tried to  use it in my thinking of the studio work I do as a
practitioner. Sometimes, in my design work, I will do 3 or 4 variations on a
design playing with an aspect or foundational element to see what comes of
it and most definitely I will evaluate my designs on these foundations as
they relate to cognitive issues associated with each one.

It is interesting how my interaction designers when the think of Time, think
about it at a micro-level. I think a great contribution to thinking about
Time as an aspect is Cooper's take on "posture". How much time and focus do
I spend with and how will greatly effect the result. But it can be thought
of the other way. How much time do I want or expect a user to spend infront
of the screen. Stickiness (if I may be so 90s) is a manipulation of time.
Persuading the user to remain, take more time, is a great variation on time
as an aspect.

> My approach is rather to structure a curriculum by design genres
> (labels I would use for modules are on the level of Mass media and
> interactive media, Pervasive computing, Interactive visualization,
> Calm computing, and so on) and bring general aspects such as Dan's
> suggestions and Dave's additions to bear as needed to support
> reflection and assessment in each of the genres addressed.

I think there is definitely a place for the approach above, but for me this
is rushing. These are mediums or canvases to work in. But before I start
doing project-based work like this, I need to have specific skills. Another
way to look at aspect work is to create expertise in craft before engaging
in expertise on theory. Now it could be said that you can build one without
the other, but I might hypothesize that doing so, prepares your students to
be great at interactive media, pervasive, visualization, calm and so on, but
will they be able to have a set of core skills that they can then apply to
"Next Tech"?

I'm sure there is a combination that can be done here. But I would caution a
purely reflective evaluative approach to using aspects (but I do like the
word aspects), as I do think of the aspects as different pens or inks or
paints to manipulate.

In a piece I did for <interactions> last year I suggested that the
aesthetics of IxD can be an allegory to the aesthetics of other
multidimensional art forms, such as Dance. To be an amazing director of a
dance company you need not only have expertise in movement of the body, but
you need to understand music, light, costume and other elements.
Manipulating these elements is not a point of reflection, but rather a point
of conscious intention.

Can it be suggested that if we want to move IxD into being understood as an
aesthetic form of design (as visual design is often) we need to have an
educational program (Jonas, maybe you are doing this) that uses aspects to
help draw out an aesthetic craft. Or is our only craft, how to make task
flows and widgets?

-- dave