[IxDA Discuss] "non-object"

[Austin Govella]

On 4/10/07, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
> Am I missing something? Is ID that far behind UX that it feels it
> needs to create ED from scratch and give it a much cooler name? It
> talks about "experiences" in the same way the ED movement (lack of a
> better word) does.

I haven't read the article, but... I think every good practitioner in
any field follows some philosophy. It's this perspective that allows
them to self-evaluate and grow both their skills and the quality of
work they do. And *really* good practitioners eventually grow into the
Bruce Lee role where they simultaneously embrace and reject all
philosophies at the same time.

It makes no matter whether Lukic uses existing words, or makes his
own; creates his own space, or uses experience design. I enjoy hearing
designers use their own words because it gives me an insight into
their perspective. Just in hearing the way you've talked about Lukic
is enough. The space between you and the object is an interesting way
of approaching the problem.

We all do the same thing, but we wouldn't use those words: we'd
approach it from a different perspective. For lack of better words
(and more thought... and probably some coffee) I focus on the
potential for stories.

So, my question is:

We all know how Lukic's approach is the same as ours; how is it
different? If you could use only one phrase to describe what is
important to you when designing, what would it be?




-- 
Austin Govella
Thinking & Making: IA, UX, and IxD
http://thinkingandmaking.com
austin.govella at gmail.com