Dan, What do you see included in in the Undergrad, Year 2 - Information Design and Visualization course?

The reason I ask is that in looking through your list I was looking for something introductory on design patterns/principals (something along the lines of the "Universal Principals of Design" book) . I've found on more than a few occasions in talking with High School seniors (the company I work for takes a lot of them on as summer interns) looking to one day get into IxD or UX that many of them have no exposure to these principals.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515

On Jun 22, 2008, at 8:03 AM, Adam Connor wrote:

What do you see included in in the Undergrad, Year 2 - Information Design and Visualization course?

Visualizing data sets. Grid systems. Color theory. Illustrations, graphs, and charts.

The reason I ask is that in looking through your list I was looking for something introductory on design patterns/principals (something along the lines of the "Universal Principals of Design" book).

One would hope that the universal principles would be taught in the studio courses as a matter of learning by doing. ("Why isn't this working? Because you've violated X principle. Let's discuss." etc.)

Dan.

Amen! This is what I hoped for when I said we could and should advise on we think would be good for the profession.

A couple of additions to the Dan's Grad Program:

Electives:

Introduction to Marketing and Branding
Philosophy of Interaction Design from Heidegger to Benjamin to Bahktin Introduction to Linguistics and Semiotics
Critical Theory - Formalism to Post-Structuralism
Business Process Management

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Dan Saffer dan at odannyboy.com wrote:

On Jun 22, 2008, at 5:54 AM, Adam Connor wrote: I think it would be great if IxDA came up with a proposed curriculum that could be used by schools to build new offerings in the IxD field. As a thought experiment, here are my dream courses for undergrad and grad (Master's) : UNDERGRADUATE Year 1: Sketching and Modeling Introduction to Typography Industrial Design Fundamentals Introduction to Programming Writing Fundamentals Year 2: Intermediate Industrial Design Intermediate Typography Information Design and Visualization Introduction to Cognitive [trim]

—
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill

Ooh, I love this one!

Philosophy of Interaction Design from Heidegger to Benjamin to Bahktin

You know what I think is needed for an elective, from a cultural studies perspective?

History and Online Cultures in Networked Computer Systems from DARPA to Present

(still hitting the early theorists, like Vannevar Bush, Nelson, et al.)

Chris

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Will Evans will at semanticfoundry.com wrote:

Amen! This is what I hoped for when I said we could and should advise on we think would be good for the profession. A couple of additions to the Dan's Grad Program: Electives: Introduction to Marketing and Branding Philosophy of Interaction Design from Heidegger to Benjamin to Bahktin Introduction to Linguistics and Semiotics Critical Theory - Formalism to Post-Structuralism Business Process Management On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Dan Saffer dan at odannyboy.com wrote: On Jun 22, 2008, at 5:54 AM, Adam Connor wrote: I think [trim]

Great thought experiment. Some things that came to mind when I read the list:

1. There is a jump between sketching and digital prototyping. I think that there should be a survey course on the entire range of prototyping methods to provide a suite of tools for interaction designers. The course would include: workflow diagrams, wireframes, metaphor, storyboards, wizard of OZ testing, personas (prototyping users), paper prototyping, card sorting, and a few other techniques.

2. Advanced user interface design that gets beyond the basics into things like agent technology, ambient user interfaces, etc.

3. Something on universal design and accessibility. There are a lot of aging baby boomers around (I'm one of them and the eyes aren't what they used to be).

4. Human factors fundamentals (this would be touched on in a number of the courses including the one on cognitive psych, but there are many principles in HF that have been heavily researched and that would provide designers with a stronger rationale for their recommenations and designs.

5. An experiential course in color (like the one that Albers did — I took a course from one of Alber's students and it was quite an eye opener). Someone might have mentioned that.

6. Social psychological principles and their application to interaction design — much of what we are developing is collaborative and involves groups working together so some old and some new social psych principles would provide a foundation for the design of collaboration software (which goes by different names like social networking...).

7. Fun and Pleasure in product design.

Good topic.
Chauncey

UNDERGRADUATE Year 1: Sketching and Modeling Introduction to Typography Industrial Design Fundamentals Introduction to Programming Writing Fundamentals Year 2: Intermediate Industrial Design Intermediate Typography Information Design and Visualization Introduction to Cognitive Psychology Design History Year 3: Design Research Digital Prototyping Physical Computing Design Theory Interface Design Year 4: Senior Project Studio: Projects with New Technology Advanced Topics (CD, ID, CS, Psychology, Anthropology) Current Topics in IxD Documenting Systems Ideally, there would be a mix of humanities classes in here as well.

GRADUATE Year 1: Refresher Courses (sampler as per undergrad courses) Design Theory Design Strategy Design Research Analysis Business Fundamentals Year 2: Master's Thesis Master's Project Design Management Advanced Topics (CD, ID, CS, Psychology, Anthropology) Current Topics in IxD

The undergraduate aspect of this is the toughest.

My degree was a BFA in graphic design (which I think is easier to grasp) but we didn't even start the actual design classes until the 2nd year. The first year was focused on foundation courses in drawing and basic two- and three-dimensional form.

I came back and taught in the design department a number of years later and in retrospect I saw that what we were really doing those first two years was simply teaching students how to approach problems in a designerly way. To care about craft. To sketch. To iterate. To think like designers. It's hard to overstate how alien this is to most people and how long it takes to learn.

Essentially you need to teach students how to be designers before you teach them how to be a particular kind of designer.

But it's inhumane to drop an 18-year-old into a design curriculum. They need to ramp up and internalize the core design skills and work ethic. Even once they get into the actual design classes in the 2nd year it's really just baby steps; basic visual design fundamentals and basic design software skills. Then basic typography and information design etc...

There's never enough time. Even for the design stuff. You can only realistically do about two studio design courses a semester, along with maybe a tangental studio course in photography or drawing. That's 18 hours of studio a week and another 18 hours outside of class working on projects. Plus lecture courses and general education.

And teaching students to appreciate code while they're learning to be designers? Uhg. It's like pulling teeth to teach design students how HTML works, much less Actionscript or Processing. And once you take into account IA or human factors or research skills? I don't know if it's possible to do it within a four year college framework.

I'd take Dan's list and besides adding much more history, a color theory course, a photography course, a motion course, a web design course and a design software course I'd add another year before everything, just for basics in drawing and experimenting with two-dimensional and three-dimensional form. Less rigorous than IDF. Give kids a chance to experiment and decide whether 36 hours a week of studio work is in their blood or not and weed out the dilatantes.

What is that? Six years?

The University of Cincinatti turns out skilled interface designers through their Bachelors of Science in Digital Design program. But they don't use the traditional college framework. It's a quarter system rather than semesters with a comprehensive internship program built into the curriculum. It's the closest thing I know to an undergraduate interface design degree.

// jeff

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515

Which is why I do not think you can properly prepare an interaction designer within the constructs of a bachelors degree. Given what Dan outlines as a curriculum, and what Jeff has added (which I totally agree with) it IS a lot. Also factor in that this excludes the well rounded liberal arts courses as do most design degrees. Skip the classics of literature? Pass on in-depth wold history, logic or philosophies? One of the keys to being a successful interaction designer is being a more than competent human - the ability to understand people does not come from a psych class. You can not count on (public or otherwise) high school for this stuff.

This is a difficult job to do well. And yes, I know that there are people who do it well with out any degree at all. But there is also a ton of really bad Ixd out there being done everyday by designers with and without a graduate degree. If you are one of those who do it well, without the help of college, then congratulations - that is really something special. But be very careful in prescribing that same path to others.

The breadth of human understanding, with a very deep design understanding does not come easy or quickly... no matter how high the demand or how much we want to grow the profession and this association.

Mark

On Jun 22, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Jeff Howard wrote:

I'd take Dan's list and besides adding much more history, a color theory course, a photography course, a motion course, a web design course and a design software course I'd add another year before everything, just for basics in drawing and experimenting with two-dimensional and three-dimensional form. Less rigorous than IDF. Give kids a chance to experiment and decide whether 36 hours a week of studio work is in their blood or not and weed out the dilatantes. What is that? Six years?

I absolutely agree with Mark. To do any less would be teaching interface design with a trade school mentality. You could do it, but for interaction design survey courses in history, literature, art, philosophy, political science, anthropology, sociology, psychology and ethics should be considered vital. Plus it doesn't hurt to have a passing acquaintance with science, math and engineering.

Wow, this is starting to seem like a really hard sell to undecided college freshmen...

// jeff

Mark wrote:
Skip the classics of literature? Pass on in-depth wold history, logic or philosophies? One of the keys to being a successful interaction designer is being a more than competent human

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515

While reading this thread, I couldn't help but notice a pervasive assumption: The ideal educational background for an interaction designer is a single degree (whether graduate or undergraduate) that touches upon every aspect of the profession and related fields.

Is that a realistic premise? I doubt it. It ignores the reality of a fast evolving field in which the best work is done by teams of T-shaped specialists, in a world where information acquired in a traditional university setting has an ever shorter half-life.

And of course it would be a hard sell to undecided college freshmen. Imagine being asked at 18 years of age to invest 6 years of your life to stake out your career in a field that's (for all practical purposes) less than 10 years old. Sounds like a risky proposition, no?

Dmitry

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Jeff Howard id at howardesign.com wrote: Wow, this is starting to seem like a really hard sell to undecided college freshmen... // jeff

dmitry, a common degree in the US is the 6yr. med program. Many students enter undergrad "knowing" they want to be doctors. Why not IxD's? If I can get an MD in 6 yrs (including summers I think) , why not a Masters of IxD in 5 years including some intensive work (or required internships) during summers?

BTW, Jeff tells a great story and articulated beautifully the reasons for foundations in ID and Visual Design.

BTW, one reason "design school" programs excite me so much that people hadn't mentioned in the other thread that I thought about b/c of this thread is the connection to all of the expressionist design programs in the same school: illustration, fashion, interior, floral, event, etc.ID, Architecture and IxD have the commonality of having really conservative clients as a rule.

BTW, another type of course that no one has mentioned that I've seen at ID schools are corp projects. You've got 10 weeks to do a corporate sponsored project. Yea you can fail, unlike a real job, but when done right students really can learn a lot about the real world and what clients expects.

I have so much to add in this thread about curricullum but I'll just say that no one mentioned two anthro courses (intro to socio-cultural) and ethnography for anthro design.

I do think that a degree in ID (like in Syracuse) or IxD should be a minimum of a 5 yr program. Basically the coursework is the equiv of a double major.

As for a masters it should be treated similarly to a masters of ID where if you weren't a bachelor w/ that degree you need to go 3 years so that you can do foundations, otherwise 2. Anyone who did not go through foundations for ID or IxD shouldn't really have a masters degree, b/c they probably didn't actually achieve a masters of craft and design thinking that that year of foundations puts you through.

-- dave

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515

Oh, another point to share..
In talking to an educator recently, they confessed that with all the "new" stuff out there they have no idea how to teach anyone all they need to know in any reasonable time frame at all. -- dave

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515

There are also quite a lot of 5-year Architecture programs. Generally, with these, and somee 4-year programs, you have to complete one year of school outside the program, gen eds, overview courses, and then apply your sophomore year for "admission" into the program. Those without the grades from the first year are not admitted, so that also sort of screens out people shopping for majors. They have the 1st year overview courses to sample, while the faculty can concentrate on the students who have shown they are committed to the program.

For instance, the University of Arkansas Architecture program is a very intense studio experience, where all admitted students get drafting desks and cubes of sorts to build their models etc in one big common area. They put in long hours and work very very hard those 4 years they are in the program, basically living in those cubes, with a tight community of students as well, crits, the works. The program has a really excellent reputation.

Chris

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:40 PM, dave malouf dave at ixda.org wrote:

dmitry, a common degree in the US is the 6yr. med program. Many students enter undergrad "knowing" they want to be doctors. Why not IxD's? If I can get an MD in 6 yrs (including summers I think) , why not a Masters of IxD in 5 years including some intensive work (or required internships) during summers? BTW, Jeff tells a great story and articulated beautifully the reasons for foundations in ID and Visual Design. BTW, one reason "design school" programs excite me so much that people hadn't mentioned in the other thread that I thought about [trim]

Dmitry wrote:
Is that a realistic premise? I doubt it. It ignores the reality of a fast evolving field in which the best work is done by teams of T-shaped specialists

You can also look at T-shaped people as generalists.

I think the curriculum we're talking about would result in T-shaped people. Students would specialize in interface design but be familiar with other design disciplines and be able to relate to people from majors like anthropology or psychology or computer science or engineering or technical writing...

But to do that you need time. The fundamental problem with educating a generalist is that there's too much general information in the world that's tangentally important to cover in eight semesters.

So what are some options?

1) . More specialization. Cover fewer general subjects. 2) . Extend the number of years to obtain a degree. 3) . Subdivide the term duration to fit more classes into the year. 4) . Start earlier. High school outreach and summer programs.

Christine's architecture example (and to some extent, Dmitry's last paragraph) illustrates how important high school outreach could be. It's not uncommon for design programs to have prerequisite classes the very first semester, and if you don't know to take them upon enrolling as a freshman you can't apply for admission into the School of Design as a sophomore. At my alma mater anyone who came to design even one semester late couldn't finish the degree in four years even though it was only a four year degree. There were lots of design seniors in their mid-twenties.

Evangelizing to high-school students early on could help build the awareness necessary to hit the ground running once they get to college.

// jeff

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515

Dave, you're absolutely correct regarding the 6 year med school programs (as well as e.g. combined bachelors/MBA programs) . Same for the architecture programs as mentioned by Christine. A motivated high school senior will have no problem making that commitment.

The difference is the perceived value of of the hypothetical IxD degree. For the purpose of the comparison, it's useful to put yourself in the shoes of the target audience - obviously, to an enthusiastic and successful IxD practitioner, the value is quite clear.

In the eyes of a high school senior, the 6 year med school program or the 5 year architecture program would lead them to a career in a field that is prestigious, well-publicized, and well-compensated.

The student's parents and other adult figures, who may well be involved in the decision making process, may also note that these fields are regulated (hence fewer worries about outsourcing) and the demand is not cyclical (hence fewer worries about a dot-com crash repeat) .

IxD, by contrast, is not generally known to be any of the above - or, to be more precise, is just not generally known about, period. So I agree with Jeff's point about the importance of high school outreach, and would extend it to outreach to society in general. Only with a greater level of public awareness about our profession do I see 4+ year IxD programs becoming viable.

Dmitry

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:40 PM, dave malouf dave at ixda.org wrote: dmitry, a common degree in the US is the 6yr. med program. Many students enter undergrad "knowing" they want to be doctors. Why not IxD's? If I can get an MD in 6 yrs (including summers I think) , why not a Masters of IxD in 5 years including some intensive work (or required internships) during summers?

Ah! so we have a big marketing campaign ahead of us. Fortunately, Fast Company already started this out for us calling IxD one of the top 10 jobs you didn't know you wanted to have. ;-)

I've been thinking about this from a different tact.

Maybe "major" doesn't make sense for IxD at the undergrad level. The reason I'm swaying this direction for the point of argumentation here is that I do believe that the medium agnostic philosophy of IxD makes it very difficult to market to the younger crowd. The "thing" is well the thing, so having concentrations in IxD for interactive, for software product, for industrial design, for architecture (etc.) might be a better tact and then for the really invested the masters degree might work, no?

I think that this might speak to Andrei a bit more than some of the others who have been discussing this sort of thing so far on the list.

-- dave

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Dmitry Nekrasovski mail.dmitry at gmail.com wrote:
Dave, you're absolutely correct regarding the 6 year med school programs (as well as e.g. combined bachelors/MBA programs) . Same for the architecture programs as mentioned by Christine. A motivated high school senior will have no problem making that commitment. The difference is the perceived value of of the hypothetical IxD degree. For the purpose of the comparison, it's useful to put yourself in the shoes of the target audience - obviously, to an enthusiastic and successful IxD practitioner, the value is quite clear. In the eyes of a high school senior, the 6 year med school program or [trim]

-- David Malouf
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixda.org/
http://motorola.com/

5 year BFA programs are not uncommon. My BFA was a 5yr program, but it took me 6 yrs because it was a California State University. CSU's never have enough general ed classes available, so it took that long just to get IN to some classes. But the benefit was I had 6 full years of art, design and theory courses as well as 6 years of gallery exhibitions. You can't beat time for building your craft.

Dan's list is a good one, but I agree adding in some anthro and perhaps cog sci would be nice too.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515

Pharmacy is a 6 year program now as well.

On Jun 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, dave malouf wrote:

dmitry, a common degree in the US is the 6yr. med program.

On Jun 22, 2008, at 6:47 PM, kim Lenox wrote:

5 year BFA programs are not uncommon. My BFA was a 5yr program, but it took me 6 yrs because it was a California State University. CSU's never have enough general ed classes available, so it took that long just to get IN to some classes. But the benefit was I had 6 full years of art, design and theory courses as well as 6 years of gallery exhibitions. You can't beat time for building your craft. Dan's list is a good one, but I agree adding in some anthro and perhaps cog sci would be nice too.

I did include a basic Cog Psych class in there (Year 2). And Research (Year 3).

But honestly, I think we're smoking our own crack if we think it's necessary for us to need a 5 or 6 year undergraduate degree. I hate to break this to everyone, but what we do Isn't. That. Hard. Sure, there are a lot of facets to it, but many of us on the list seem to be able to do what we do without many years of intense preparation. I think we need to expect that a lot of learning and growing is going to happen on the job. And this is probably how it should be. Increasing the barrier to entry for new practitioners is not something we should strive to do.

Dan

Dave wrote:
the medium agnostic philosophy of IxD makes it very difficult to market to the younger crowd. The "thing" is well the thing, so having concentrations in IxD for interactive, for software product, for industrial design, for architecture (etc.) might be a better tact

That's why I think interface design is an easier sell than interaction design at the undergraduate level.

For better or worse, undergraduate design education is centered around the act of making as a catalyst for learning about design. Those are critical skills, but making artifacts isn't the whole story when it comes to interaction design.

I remember a few snippits of conversations while I was at Carnegie Mellon about why there wasn't a bachelors degree in interaction design. Some of it might be a question of maturity (both the discipline and the students) . If you could build such a program, would it be a good thing to have 21 year old interaction designers running around?

I worked with a few seniors at CMU who would have made great interaction designers, but I think they're the exception.

// jeff

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515

Dan,

I think it's important to distinguish between a generation practitioners from other fields who, through experience, are capable of doing some(niche - broader or narrower) IxD work really well; and preparing a
generation of graduates with the grounding they need to approach any IxD task with some reasonable chance of success.

Your course outline seems to me to provide for the latter pretty well, whilst allowing for the former if someone sees their niche and quits after 2 or 3 years to pursue it.

Steve

2008/6/23 Dan Saffer dan at odannyboy.com:

I did include a basic Cog Psych class in there (Year 2) . And Research (Year 3) . But honestly, I think we're smoking our own crack if we think it's necessary for us to need a 5 or 6 year undergraduate degree. I hate to break this to everyone, but what we do Isn't. That. Hard. Sure, there are a lot of facets to it, but many of us on the list seem to be able to do what we do without many years of intense preparation. I think we need to expect that a lot of learning [trim]

Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths) , M.EC, MBA
Principal Consultant
Meld Consulting
M: +61 417 061 292
E: stevebaty at meld.com.au

On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:52 PM, Steve Baty wrote:

Your course outline seems to me to provide for the latter pretty well, whilst allowing for the former if someone sees their niche and quits after 2 or 3 years to pursue it.

The most important thing for an IxD is to actually start doing IxD. Learn the basics, which I think Dan has laid out a pretty good program for, get the foundations down, and then hit the street and start doing.

We are thinkers, but we get paid to do.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully. Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter: zakiwarfel
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

"We are thinkers, but we get paid to do."

This is absolutely true - but - and it might only be my perspective - is that many IxD folks do - a lot - all day long. Many know what to do - they don't know why they do it. That is the critical piece that the theory does provide. Studio, Crit - all very important. Some say you can get all the theory you need from books and CHI papers, etc. But not to belabor ChristineB's point - but most simply don't do the reading, and a formal grad program may be the only place where they are forced to do the hard work. Doing stuff, making stuff - that's fun, challenging, difficult, etc - but for many, the reading, critical theory, and application of that to real problems is where they slack off.
Think about it this way - if you read just one book a month related to IxD, IA, Cog Sci, Design, etc - three years from now you have close to forty books under your belt. That's a lot of knowledge - a lot of best practices, new ideas - things to apply back into your work.

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel lists at toddwarfel.com wrote:

On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:52 PM, Steve Baty wrote: Your course outline seems to me to provide for the latter pretty well, whilst allowing for the former if someone sees their niche and quits after 2 or 3 years to pursue it. The most important thing for an IxD is to actually start doing IxD. Learn the basics, which I think Dan has laid out a pretty good program for, get the foundations down, and then hit the street and start doing. We are thinkers, but we get paid to do.

I was thinking about the qualities of good Interaction Designers (and also comparing and contrasting the profession to that of IA, Graphic Designer, etc.) It hit me that what was missing from this list - is time-based arts: music, dance, etc. Then I thought of Tai Chi and American Sign Language.

After thinking about why that was important -I settled on this suggestion for the list: Time based activities and arts which combine rhythm, pattern, physical movement, communication, and language. Some examples: dance, tai-chi, and choreography.

This also addresses Dave's desire to develop skills which are medium agnostic.

-Donna Fritzsche

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 07:41:09 -0700, Dan Saffer wrote On Jun 22, 2008, at 5:54 AM, Adam Connor wrote: I think it would be great if IxDA came up with a proposed curriculum that could be used by schools to build new offerings in the IxD field. As a thought experiment, here are my dream courses for undergrad and grad (Master's) : UNDERGRADUATE Year 1: Sketching and Modeling Introduction to Typography Industrial Design Fundamentals Introduction to Programming Writing Fundamentals Year 2: Intermediate Industrial Design Intermediate Typography Information Design and Visualization [trim]

There is also Service Design (shout out to Mssr. Howard) .

Here is JH's list of research in SD
http://www.howardesign.com/exp/service/

- W

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Donna M. Fritzsche donnamarie at amichi.info wrote:

I was thinking about the qualities of good Interaction Designers (and also comparing and contrasting the profession to that of IA, Graphic Designer, etc.) It hit me that what was missing from this list - is time-based arts: music, dance, etc. Then I thought of Tai Chi and American Sign Language. After thinking about why that was important -I settled on this suggestion for the list: Time based activities and arts which combine rhythm, pattern, physical movement, communication, and language. Some examples: dance, tai-chi, and choreography. This also addresses Dave's desire to develop skills which are medium [trim]

On Jun 23, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Will Evans wrote:

Many know whatto do - they don't know why they do it

Very true. I'm much more of a why than a what. Asking why got me into a lot of trouble when I was younger. That's still my favorite question.

Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully. Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: todd at messagefirst.com
AIM: twarfel at mac.com
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter: zakiwarfel
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel lists at toddwarfel.com wrote:

On Jun 23, 2008, at 8:32 AM, Will Evans wrote: Many know whatto do - they don't know why they do it Very true. I'm much more of a why than a what. Asking why got me into a lot of trouble when I was younger.

But, Why?

That's still my favorite question.

On the subject of "Why" vs. "What" I think that that is a question, if not the question, that separates a good designer from a great one, and separates decoration from design.

I've met a number of junior UXDs (and I should admit that I've done this myself) who had at some point looked at their job as nothing more than to take a set of requirements, make a few choices on the controls to use and arrange them on the page. Its not until they're almost complete that they realize that there is something wrong, but can't figure out what.

It's the fact that they never asked "why." Why is requirement x a requirement?

Asking that "why" leads to a whole bunch of "whats" that were never exposed to them before. What is the user trying to achieve? What is it that the project owner is trying to do with said requirement? And so an and so forth...

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515

This direction makes sense to me. It would ensure that new IxD's have a T-shaped background, and would also defer medium agnosticism until the students are presumably mature enough to fully immerse themselves in it.

(Having come to the field via the 2 degree route, though, I may be somewhat biased. : )

Dmitry

On 6/22/08, David Malouf dave at ixda.org wrote:

Maybe "major" doesn't make sense for IxD at the undergrad level. The reason I'm swaying this direction for the point of argumentation here is that I do believe that the medium agnostic philosophy of IxD makes it very difficult to market to the younger crowd. The "thing" is well the thing, so having concentrations in IxD for interactive, for software product, for industrial design, for architecture (etc.) might be a better tact and then for the really invested the masters degree might work, no? I think that this might speak to Andrei a bit more than some of [trim]

On Jun 22, 2008, at 7:46 PM, Jeff Howard wrote:
I remember a few snippits of conversations while I was at Carnegie Mellon about why there wasn't a bachelors degree in interaction design. Some of it might be a question of maturity (both the discipline and the students). If you could build such a program, would it be a good thing to have 21 year old interaction designers running around?

Yep, exactly. I'd alluded to this earlier in the threads... At least in terms of how CMU approaches "interaction design" as a strategic art of thought, innovation, and connection-making across disciplines (for ex: the applicability of interaction ideas/methods to services or management), that would be too out of reach for most undergrads who may lack the maturity and sufficient real-world experience to make those leaps (and turn that into something meaningful, productive, etc.)

However, an undergrad degree program rooted in the more tactical, digital-craft related aspects would be more appropriate given the students' skill and thought level. With perhaps senior level studios that touch upon or hint at those broader interaction areas, getting into service design, social issues, etc. And if the student wishes to pursue that level of inquiry and study even further, hey go for the master's. That's what I did :-) My senior ID project (some combined phone/PDA/wallet thing) was really an investigation of the service design of geo-location and electronic cash mediated by a digital hybrid device—but I didn't realize that at all, I just "sensed" there was something to design bigger than the artifact. By the time I reached my senior year in ID my "eye sight" had expanded to other forms and possibilities of design that I was itching to explore further. I would expect that any worthy design degree program would inspire students in such a fashion...

Also, just to point out: neither undergrad nor graduate education is meant to train/educate on every single issue or lesson of the profession...else it would be a 6+ yr degree costing 300K! The point is to give a baseline level of "necessary and sufficient" skills/ideas/ theory to get enough of a start (or re-fresher/new insights for those already experienced) in the profession. And to hopefully provoke an insatiable curiosity to learn more, however that may transpire...

Uday Gajendar
Sr. Interaction Designer
Voice Technology Group
Cisco | San Jose

I would like to see the Design Theory include an exposure to ethnographic research, 1:1 usability evaluations and how people use screen readers. I see it as something like a hands-on lab for a science course and a way to help students find their passion.

Also I feel the writing course should be focused on technical and business writing. Electives could include statistics and analytics.

Thanks Chauncey for mentioning Albers and color theory. I was also taught by one of Albers students and have visited his collection at the Yale Museum of Art. I feel my charts, graphs, site flows and influence on visual design are much stronger from being taught Albers' theories.

Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=30515

On Jun 23, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Mabel Ney wrote:

I would like to see the Design Theory include an exposure to ethnographic research, 1:1 usability evaluations and how people use screen readers. I see it as something like a hands-on lab for a science course and a way to help students find their passion. Also I feel the writing course should be focused on technical and business writing. Electives could include statistics and analytics.

This sounds more like an HCI degree than a design degree. Design Theory has nothing to do with ethnography, usability, or screen readers. Design theory is about the philosophical underpinnings of design and its artifacts and the place of design in the world.

It is much more important for design students to be able to create and justify concepts than to evaluate them quantifiably IMHO. The ability to create new, inventive, and well-reasoned products and solutions should be what we're training designers to do.

Dan

After reading the thread on higher education, I went to the HFES.org website to find a local University and inquire about their Human Factors program.

I thought you might be interested in the response I received from the professor:

I think it is a great idea to pursue an advanced HF degree. Our program was a very good one and would have been a good fit for you. But because of the state budget cuts, FIU has decided to terminate our entire department. So the program will not exist after next year.

Regards,

Gretchen Denton
Human Factors
Avocent Corporation
One Dambrackas Way
Sunrise, FL 33351
gretchen.denton at avocent.com
p: 954.377.7292

I dunno. I'd never say Design Theory has nothing to do with ethnography or usability. To me, that kind of one-way design thinking approach is what got the design field into the blind alley it currently is stuck in, helpless to adapt to precisely what INTERACTIVE design means.

That blind alley is the reason we are creating this new field in the first place. I'd say the last thing we'd want to do is put the Artist/Designer back into her high-tower, preparing wondrous creations to unleash upon a grateful and waiting one-to-many monologic world.

Chris

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Dan Saffer dan at odannyboy.com wrote:

On Jun 23, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Mabel Ney wrote: I would like to see the Design Theory include an exposure to ethnographic research, 1:1 usability evaluations and how people use screen readers. I see it as something like a hands-on lab for a science course and a way to help students find their passion. Also I feel the writing course should be focused on technical and business writing. Electives could include statistics and analytics. This sounds more like an HCI degree than a design degree. Design Theory has nothing to do with ethnography, usability, or screen [trim]

On Jun 22, 2008, at 4:41 PM, dave malouf wrote:

In talking to an educator recently, they confessed that with all the "new" stuff out there they have no idea how to teach anyone all they need to know in any reasonable time frame at all.

It'll most likely be like this until technology settles down more. That gives you roughly ten years, I'd say, given past technology cycles. It's just the nature of the beast.

In looking over Dan Saffer's post about topics... I'm not sure why some of you ever disagreed with me in the past over what it is that we do. His list is pretty good and reasonably diverse, missing only a few pieces that don't add to the overall weight of the discipline. Sure, I call that list "interface" design you call it "interaction" design, but the skills required in that list are very extensive and cross- disciplinary. Yet, I've gotten no end of grief from folks from requesting that designers in this field know more about a cross of topics.

Oh well... At least people are coming around.

The few things I think Dan is missing in that list are (my additions/ changes are *) :

UNDERGRADUATE

Year 1:
Sketching and Modeling
*Graphic Design Fundamentals (in lieu of Typography specifically. Why limit to type when you can cover type, color and composition here? It's just fundamentals, and the fundamentals of GD are no more complex than the fundamentals of ID.)
Industrial Design Fundamentals
Introduction to Programming
Writing Fundamentals

Year 2:
Intermediate Industrial Design
*Intermediate Graphic Design (again, you want to cover enough type, color and composition that's needed. Not full fledged GD, but enough of a spectrum here if you are going to do the same with ID) Information Design and Visualization
Introduction to Cognitive Psychology
*Introduction to Scripting (like JavaScript, PHP or ActiveScript, low level languages that are not hardcore programming) Design History

Year 3:
Design Research
Digital Prototyping
*Physical Computing (This might be too early here, depending on technology, so it would need to scale with the times) Design Theory
*(Removed Interface Design: No need to confuse the issue as no one would be able to tell you what "interface design" is in relation to this course since the topics here cover all interface design issues. Best to cover whatever you meant here in the prototyping course)

Year 4:
Senior Project
Studio: Projects with New Technology
Advanced Topics (CD, ID, CS, Psychology, Anthropology) Current Topics in IxD
Documenting Systems

I would agree that a 5 years program might ease the burden for some here.

As for the graduate work, I think you should consider the broader "interaction" piece there. Things that are more outside the scope of digital and software. You could get into environmental interaction design there for example. This way the undergrad work stays focused on more practical expressions of the field, while the graduate course gets to spread its wings a bit more.

—
Andrei Herasimchuk

Principal, Involution Studios
innovating the digital world

e. andrei at involutionstudios.com
c. +1 408 306 6422

On Jun 23, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Christine Boese wrote:

I dunno. I'd never say Design Theory has nothing to do with ethnography or usability.

What then do you think design theory is? If we're going to talk about what something is or isn't, please start by defining what you think it is. "Nothing to do with" might have been a little strong, because philosophically, how you approach design may intersect with those fields, but theory is not really about methods, which both ethnography and usability testing are.

(-$1 for me using usability as a noun earlier.)

To me, that kind of one-way design thinking approach is what got the design field into the blind alley it currently is stuck in,

We're in a blind alley now? How so? Funny, I'm thinking just the opposite. I'm thinking design is more integrated, powerful, and respected than in any time in the previous 50 years, since back in the heyday of industrial design in the 1950s.

helpless to adapt to precisely what INTERACTIVE design means.

What is interactive design? That term is meaningless. I have no idea what you mean by this. Explain. How are we not adapting to what? Are you talking about graphic design?

That blind alley is the reason we are creating this new field in the first place.

No, the reason this field exists is because design goes where technology and materials take it. Once there became a need to start designing the behavior of objects, the field of interaction design was born. Not because of some blind alley (what does that even mean?) .

I'd say the last thing we'd want to do is put the Artist/Designer back into her high-tower, preparing wondrous creations to unleash upon a grateful and waiting one-to-many monologic world.

Why is this not a valid means of design? I'll let Andrei and Jim Leftwich do their thing here, but I'll point to Jared's recent keynote:

http://www.uie.com/brainsparks /2008 /04 /23 /ia -summit -keynote -journey -to -the -center -of -design /

where he notes:

"The foundations of user-centered design are now disintegrating. Notable community members are suggesting UCD practice is burdensome and returns little value. There’s a growing sentiment that spending limited resources on user research takes away from essential design activities. Previously fundamental techniques, such as usability testing and persona development, are now regularly under attack. And let’s not forget that today’s shining stars, such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the iPod, came to their success without UCD practices."

Dan

On Jun 23, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Christine Boese wrote: I dunno. I'd never say Design Theory has nothing to do with ethnography or usability. To me, that kind of one-way design thinking approach is what got the design field into the blind alley it currently is stuck in, helpless to adapt to precisely what INTERACTIVE design means.

Actually, sorry but Dan's right... Design Theory is focused on the philosophical and theoretical foundations of designing: invention, creativity, communication, decision-making, to design something, and it's cultural/social value and place in the world. There maybe some incidental reference to HCI related matters but that's really for a straight-up HCI Fundamentals course, going into the HCI related theories per computer science, psychology, and sociology and anthro knowledge bases.

Not sure what you mean by "interactive", but the full range of design theories and perspectives, with HCI theories combined provide ample (maybe too much!) fodder to flexibly design compelling products/ services/systems for any kind of situation...How to effectively make use those of ideas in action, is the real challenge and comes with years of experience, which this field is still developing...

Uday Gajendar
Sr. Interaction Designer
Voice Technology Group
Cisco | San Jose

Don't have time to reply at length right now (and you know my real name is Chris Verbose) , but if this will help clarify a position I intend to strongly defend:

I was referring to Old School Design vs Interactive Design, and defining that difference PRIMARILY in terms of MONOLOGIC Design vs DIALOGIC Design.

Big difference. Massive difference. Makes all the difference in the world. We still have not even begun realizing all of the implications of what this mean, esp. given the quick reactions to what I was putting out there.

Horseless carriage-land is not really where we want to be, and doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results... an interactive environment demands an interactive design response, and even more than that (but that latter part is a theory I'm still working out, so it isn't fully hatched yet) .

But monologic design for interactivity is definitely NOT the Design Capital-T Theory such a program should be teaching. It's a bit like an oxymoron.

I understand the need to move beyond UCD, but I'm actually headed in the direction of LESS of a focus on an atomized individual "user" and more on the social aspects of design. And you can't do social design in a vacuum, the lonely artist designer laboring in a tower.

Chris

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Uday Gajendar ugajenda at cisco.com wrote:

On Jun 23, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Christine Boese wrote: I dunno. I'd never say Design Theory has nothing to do with ethnography or usability. To me, that kind of one-way design thinking approach is what got the design field into the blind alley it currently is stuck in, helpless to adapt to precisely what INTERACTIVE design means. Actually, sorry but Dan's right... Design Theory is focused on the philosophical and theoretical foundations of designing: invention, creativity, communication, decision-making, to design something, and it's cultural/social value and place in the world. There maybe some incidental reference to HCI related [trim]