On Interaction Design
•Disciplines are based on metaphoric framings and the knowledge from them.
In the Invisible Computer by Donald Norman he presents an illustration that shows chairs created by several related but distinct disciplines. Each chair, sharing the same impetus for its creation, is indelibly marked by the frame from which its creators work. The manufacture’s chair is inexpensive in its construction, the engineer’s rigorous in its stability, and the designer’s chair is novel in its treatment of form. The basic artifactuality of the chair is consistent between each; an instrumental object for human sitting, and of course each design supports this. The conceptual metaphors which are brought to bare in elaborating on this description, however, are not.
Whether through the lens of beauty, communication, safety, or marketability, each discipline has its specialized metaphor(s) for describing artifacts and how they fit into one of a plurality of world views. An artifact is extra dimensional in this sense. It exists in a universe defined by the physicality of the human body and its biological sensorial abilities. It inhabits a universe where the existence of an item is predicated on a person’s desire and ability to purchase it. It also exist in a universe where continual existence often requires repeated sacrifice of resources. Making design decisions that effect an artifact’s qualities in any of these spaces requires a body of specialized knowledge about how those spaces function. This knowledge is generally consolidated into specific disciplines like marketing, engineering, manufacturing, or industrial design.[1]
•IxD is a discipline concerned with the creation of artifacts as CULTURAL OBJECTS.
Interaction design is one such emerging discipline; It’s universe is one of culture. Specifically, a culture defined by the activities and behaviors of its individuals and the artifacts that they interact with and through. Anthropology, sociology, and psychology are important areas of knowledge being quickly absorbed by this nascent discipline.[2] The metaphor that IxD uses is that of ARTIFACT as CULTURAL OBJECT. Furthermore, culture is viewed in terms of the activities and behaviors of the individuals that exist within it.[3]
This new field is predicated on Marshall McCluhan’s understanding that “We shape our tools, and then our tools shape us”.[4] As the nature of a culture’s artifacts and technology can have profound impacts on the rest of that culture, it behooves for us to understand these relationships and perhaps ethically required for us to do so. As Jon Kolko states, “Your work will change culture. Do work that is worth doing.”
•IxD is generally concerned with the design of “interactive” artifacts, particularly computational ones.
Of our technologies, few are having more profound an impact on society than those that include complex computational abilities. Any cultural artifact can influence behavior, but current computational technologies have capabilities of such magnitude that we are unable to ignore them. This importance is recognized outside of interaction design even, having engendered such other fields such as software studies and game studies.
While the cultural effects of these artifacts make them ripe subjects for interaction design, an artifact’s particular interactive qualities are also important. Interactive artifacts are those defined as having the ability to sense contextual variables, process the information, and respond in some variable and deliberate fashion.[5] An interactive artifact’s peculiar ability to respond to changes in its context, or changes in its user’s behavior, makes it possible, if not necessary, to design for these changes.
Outside of interactive artifacts, interaction design may still exist, but limited ability to create artifacts that respond to behaviors might curtail the usefulness of its framing. Malcom McCullough, in using architectural principles to to argue for situated computing makes such a convincing argument that architecture itself might be viewed as an example of what pre-interactive interaction design might look like. Regardless, designing within a cultural framework is a necessary aspect of interaction design, complex interactivity is incidental.
•Behavior is not a medium. IxD is not a “Design” discipline.
An argument may be made that even if cultural framing is a primary requirement interactivity is still necessary in that it defines the medium interaction designers work in. The claim put forth by Robert Fabricant is that behavior — specifically the behavior of the user — is the ‘medium’ of interaction design.[6] I find this idea presumptuous at best. It implies that the behavior of a user is directly manipulable by the designer. Describing a person’s behavior as a material to be crafted is, by definition, to objectify said person. This argument applies equally to those, like Nathan Shedroff, who qualify interaction design in part as the “design of experiences”.[7] A stance refuted by both Shelly Evanson [8] and Jon Kolko [9].
While I seriously doubt anyone’s intention is to exert absolute control of a human being [10] I think its valuable to make the distinction between designing-to-influence a person’s behavior vs. designing a person’s behavior. Making this distinction allows us to see interaction design as a discipline closely related to study and practice of rhetoric, a potentially valuable insight, but a topic beyond the scope of this paper.
Another position acknowledges that the affection of a person’s behavior is an end separate from means, and states more specifically that the behavior of an artifact is the ‘medium’ an interaction designer manipulates. This position also holds that the tangible material with which this behavior manifests is irrelevant to the interaction designer, that interaction design is a trans-media discipline (or perhaps sans-media).
Contradicting this view are the many examples of “interaction design” that do not exhibit behavioral qualities.[11] Aside from practical arguments, the ‘behavior is medium’ view also compromises the stability of a theoretical definition of interaction design.
Design is, among other things, iterative. This practice requires the testing of potential solutions. It stems from the oftentimes correct assumption that the first solution thought up is generally not the best, that the gestalts of a solution are not known until it is put into context, that the solution can not be mentally modeled by a designer in its entirety, and that the exploration of potentials oftentimes results in new insights into the problem space. The result is a set of disciplines centered on the successive creation of prototypes leading up to a finished solution. In contrast, the standard deliverables of interaction design (wireframes, narratives, or visualizations) constitute only the first steps of an iterative process, and while they may lead to the creation of an artifact in the hands of someone else, these pieces do not constitute an iterative process. Furthermore, iterating from one project release to the next while useful and necessary, is not the type of iteration I discuss here. Any traditional designer who offered a rough solution to a client as final with the intent to “see how things go” and improve it “next time around” would hardly qualify for the title designer.
The conflict here is between the focus on creating artifacts alongside an assertion that interaction design is essentially immaterial. A definition that includes these conflicting stances states that IxD is responsible for the creation of an artifactual solution and simultaneously relieves it of the responsibility of actually creating a finished solution. All artifacts exist in a cultural space. All artifacts also inhabit a material space. An industrial designer who makes an artifact without the relevant training or skills in anthropology or sociology will make a cultural object, however mediocre it may be. An interaction designer, as defined so far, requires assistance in order to create an artifact at all.
Let me make a few things clear. The conversational gestalts of complex interactivity are unique to forms of interactivity beyond that of simple operation and are the result of design decisions. I think a focus on the social context is relavent and useful. I also do not think that capital “D” Design is concerned exclusivly with aesthetics or the design of materials. I do think that Interaction Design is a discipline. I do think that a Design discipline requires faculty within the material context. I parse words to clarify and understand.
Assuming the defining quality of an artifact is thing-ness, any cultural spaces it inhabits are beyond that of its intrinsic properties. The cultural space that artifacts inhabit, the context IxD is concerned with, constitutes a ‘next highest context’. As such the discipline of interaction design may be viewed as an advancement built on traditional design studies.
Alternately, If IxD is to be considered a Design discipline separate from traditional disciplines it will require a defining set of intrinsic artifactual properties separate from those of traditional design disciplines, and a working knowledge of how those qualities can be manipulated for different aesthetic results.
IxD is young if nothing else, so there’s nothing to say that continual investigation of interactivity won’t coalesce into a set of phenomena unaddressed by other disciplines. Until such a day it’s situation will remain nebulous, and risks irrelevance as experienced designers in traditional media, looking for more interesting, complex, and challenging contexts, begin solving problems explicitly defined by a cultural space interaction design is centered within.
1 Dourish, Paul, “Where the Action Is”
2 ibid
3 Fogg, B. J., “Persuasive Technology”
4 McCluhan, Marshall, “Understanding Media”
5 McCullough, Malcom, “Digital Ground”
6 Robert Fabrikant Interact 9 Lecture “Behavior Is Our Medium”
7 Nathan Shedroff Interact 10 Keynote
8 Shelley Evenson Interact 10 lecture
9 Jon Kolko Interact 10 Keynote
10 Though Joss Wedon’s “Dollhouse” paints a convincing picture about how those in power, given the chance, could be perfectly content in transforming people into instruments.
11 Austin Center for Design
No comments yet.