Entry #1
The first entry. Perhaps an attempt at writing one is premature. I can’t say that I have any opinions to share, and have yet to attempt any of the readings. But I thought it might be valuable, for the purposes of research, and even just to initiate myself into the process of blog-writing, to put down a few of the questions I have been reflecting upon since yesterday’s class.
First, what is Interaction Design? That may sound like a churlish question for someone who hasn’t done the reading to ask, but I can’t say that I feel like I have a satisfactory understanding. I like Saffer’s definitions, with their humanistic overtones, but they lack the precision of Crampton-Smith’s. The consequence of her precision however is a reduction of Saffer’s inclusive terms for the items which enable greater interaction, “products” and “services”, into simply “digital artefacts”, which I find problematic. Is her specification a reflection of digital technology’s ubiquity in our lives? Or is she influenced by her own interests or occupation?
I suppose I find it problematic because I would not agree that an object like a book, or a cup, or a pencil is any less able to “shape our everyday life”. I might be being precious with those examples, but without my desk and chair for instance, I wouldn’t be able to sit and type this entry on my laptop with such ease and comfort.
As someone training to be a communication designer, Crampton-Smith’s allying, whether it is intentional or not, interaction design with industrial design is worrying too. It seems to stress function over form, or at the very least in my imagination, relegate the role of the communication designer in interaction design to being the beautifier of the content for these digital artefacts. If the goal of interaction design is as Saffer describes, then paramount to facilitating interactions between humans through products is the creation of an effective interface; one that in having to appeal to humans with the promise of enriching their lives can neither privilege form nor function, but should capitalize upon the complimentary knowledge on designers of all disciplines.
I think it would be a mistake to continue that impassioned reasoning any further. It is, at this moment, entirely speculative after all. But it does provide a good line of inquiry, and I look forward to commencing the reading with those questions in mind.
