on the interactiondesigners discuss list, beth mazur wrote about a talk at Ivrea where Bill Moggridge referred to interaction design as "digital industrial design".
i liked robert reimann's explanation of why this defintion doesn't work and what will work:
I would define interaction design as the design of the behavior of artifacts and systems,
and secondarily the form that serves and embodies that behavior. Those artifacts *might*
be digital, or might not. It just so happens that most artifacts and systems that have
behaviors complex enough to have significant interaction consideration are those that include
digital computers in one form or another.
Why is this distinction so important?
Traditional design disciplines have historically been concerned with the design of form, not
behavior. Form is typically static, and is usually easily palpable and visualizable. Behavior
is dynamic, temporal, dependent on input, and inherently non-palpable. Form relies on
visualization as a primary design tool, and assumes a working knowledge of human
perception in context. Behavior relies on narrative as a primary design tool, and assumes a
working knowledge of human behaviors in context. Although I believe that many (if not all)
overarching high-level processes are shared between most design disciplines, it's also my
belief that the specific methods and practices of the design of behavior must by necessity
be somewhat different than those that traditionally deal with form alone, and are not part
of the tradition of traditional design disciplines.
It is true that some of the more progressive industrial design programs are
coming around to the design of behavior as a distinct element of product design,
but this is still very much at the vanguard (as far as I can tell, at least in in the US),
and does not represent a majority view in organizations such as IDSA. Traditional design
disciplines are beginning to recognize that there is something different about these
"new" kinds of design problems, but as long as they try to shoehorn the design
of behavior into traditional form-oriented models and methods, I'm afraid that we will continue to
have a "blind men and elephant" approach to and understanding of interaction design.
However, on the bright side, as Kristoffer points out, it also means that those of
us from disparate design and other disciplines who *do* recognize the important
differences between traditional design and the design of behavior bring an exceptional
diversity of skill and perspective to the problem. IntD has many roots in many
disciplines, and that is both its strength and (when it comes to practitioners
explaining themselves and the field to the rest of the world with a single voice)
its Achilles' Heel.
11.21.2003 update:
robert later clarifies his statement after some squabbling over form, function and behavior:
And in this instance, a very important methodological point
is that FUNCTION <> BEHAVIOR (are you reading my mind, Dave?).
Machines function. Humans (and complex systems that need to
interact with humans) behave. Function is an artifact-centered
concept; behavior is a human-centered concept. Most
mature software functions reasonably well (i.e., it
doesn't crash much , and performs the tasks it claims to),
but behaves quite poorly from a human perspective.
I think much of the design community comes from a tradition
which takes the function of an artifact as a requirement
to which it looks to fit an appealing and appropriate
form for the context (form follows function). This works
for simple artifacts reasonably well, but much less so for
complex interactive artifacts.
Interaction designers (and like-mind designers in other fields,
as others are pointing out) realize that there is an additional
step: specified function must be translated into appealing
and useful behavior (which sometimes means changing the
function!) before form can be applied. And to understand
the required behavior, you need to understand the behavior
of the humans who will be using it.
it is this design of behavior that robert says is the point of distinction and that it is
relatively new and different than the more established design fields, with its own
skills and developing methods, which the older design disciplines will perhaps in time recognize and embrace (or develop in parallel evolution)
from what i've been reading in the discussions the priorities of focus or methodology are as follows:
Industrial Design:
1. Function
2. Form
(sometimes the order is switched)
Interaction design:
1. Behavior
2. Function
3. Form
