2008年9月29日星期一

Interaction Design or Design?

Riddle
How could a interaction designer succeeds on a crap product? Or a great interaction design from a bad product?

Instead, i would put the design instead of interaction design on the product. Interaction design is a way to thinking about how to makes product good, but better thinking on how to make the product blending into people's using activity instead of only from interaction design's perspective. And definitely, the interaction design thinking follows up naturally.

For e.g., the elements of users experience, put the different design into a hierarchy of different design ( strategy design, information design, interaction design and visual design, etc). Which may scared the product producer, "do i really need such kind of Ds?", and as well, this also makes designer in wild, "how could i put so much Ds in my tool box to make myself capable?". And i guess this is one of the cause why so many guys cant agree with each other on how ixd should be, or UX should be?
But maybe the answer is simple and straight, the goal is something to be used in user's everyday life, and the aim is to make people get goals easier, happier etc. And back from this goal and aim, all the Ds can be considered as a design problem solving method/tool box which is ready for designer's use. Or even better put them into some method cards with smart questions ( as IDEO does) , to make this fun and fruitful. Maybe forget the names, not very bad, cause only results that counts.

And another riddle,
Do chopsticks or forks designer understand what's interaction design? If not, how could they design the objects?

"The truth that can be told is not final truth. The name that can be given can be changed over time." ( LaoZi ) , or, truth is constant while guys apt to give their own favorite name. Now, there seems too many Ds compares to the real insights on everyday life.

2008年9月27日星期六

Good Design : of the use, by the use, for the use

" It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
-- Abraham Lincon

Lincon explains how the U.S. government designed as "government of the people, by the people, for the people". Regardless how current U.S. government is, this design is really target to a good government.

This hits the long discussed question inside design domain, what's good design? and how it comes into been?
Let's turn the saying as, Good design is of the use, by the use and for the use. It has been discussed or studied by designer or design researcher for long time, but here, I would put it after some riddles.

Good design is for the use.
Riddle, if you have a very cool fork, but it's difficult for serving you food, is it a good design or not. Yes, it'll not blend in your life, and you may swith to other forks as soon as you can.

Good design is by the use.
Riddle, could a Chinese ( who never use forks) design a super fork for swiss people? If yes, how could we do it? Some body may say yes, but experience designer never dares to say that.

Good design is of the use.
Riddle, could you pls tell me who design the chopsticks or forks? There's maybe some one design it, but the design be refined along the long term of use ( design evolution) , and even the people even dont think it's designed ( cause it's so naturally combined with everyday life ), I would say the design is devote to everyday activity for something, that's the design's master owner.