Response to an article

What Puts the Design in Interaction Design?

This is a response to this article:

Is there a design school culture? in which the thread instigator contemplated the difference between designers who went to art/design school and those who did not. Yes you cant hardly compeer the thinking of people that are educated in business or are educated in art/design. Most of the business people are very narrow-minded while the designers are very open-minded and have learned to think out of the box.

Looking back, interaction design was for me a result of a process, not a pursuit of design. I agree with this statement, our blogs are showing our process and makes the final product.

What’s the magic and why should I use it? In other words, what puts the design in interaction design?

My design statement is:

“Design is a personal response to combination of function and beauty.”
” This combination makes a good design!”

Signý Björg Guðlaugsdóttir

“Furthermore, our pursuit through design is to create a good fit between form and context.”
Alexander

A mouse is the best example of this convergence. Designed to solve the problem of interaction with the virtual world, the mouse is one part handle and one part button.
* 1-D—words—which are interactions = our brief
* 2-D—visual representations—which include typography, diagrams, icons, and other graphics with which users interact = Quartz Composer visuals
* 3-D—physical objects or space—with which or within which users interact = our wind driven installation.
* 4-D—time—within which users interact—for example, content that changes over time such as sound, video, or animation = wind + quartz visuals
* 5-D—behavior—including action, or operation, and presentation, or reaction = website of our process and final outcome + video of the product interacting.