[IxDA Discuss] "Design" in Interaction Design?

[Fred Beecher]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:21:42, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
>
>
> someone said this: "You should be able to think logically,
> sequentially"
>
> Yikes!!! that is engineering, not design. In fact it is the ability
> to think and connect non-sequentially that is design. (Ok, I got into
> a bit of definition war there, and it is up to you not to fall for the
> bait.)


Erm. If I'm designing an interaction where someone does one thing and
something else responds to that action, then I need to be able to think
logically and sequentially about that. What, based on my understanding of
user needs, etc., will the user expect to happen as a result of this action?
What makes sense to happen next in the context of this activity?

If I couldn't do this, I couldn't be an interaction designer. Maybe that
means that you need to be somewhat of an engineer to design interactions, I
don't know.

But I will grant you that yes, you also need to be able to think beyond the
logical, beyond the sequential toward the big-picture experience. But when
it gets down to the wireframes and the prototypes, you need to know how one
thing flows to another.

- Fred