On the eve of the IxDA conference in Savannah (Core77 will be there!), David Malouf offers an analysis of the differences and similarities between Industrial Designers and Interaction Designers, how they can learn from each other, and how IDers can bolster their knowledge--and know how--in a world of increasingly complex products. Here's the start:
Today, more and more industrial designers are being asked to design products and systems that incorporate interactive components. And since the level of complexity increases exponentially as a product gains more digital intelligence, a new kind of expertise is needed.
Further, if we look at the classical foundational elements of industrial design, there is almost no reference to anything dealing with behavior--color, texture, shape, volume, space, and line remain the primary "building blocks" of a formal industrial design education. Beyond this foundation, ID as a historical design discipline has until very recently concentrated more on the balance of function and form only as they relate to visceral, visual aesthetics. But lately, "product design" education has steered industrial design programs to consider "context of use" as a core data set in guiding function and form. Even these programs tend to concentrate more on research methodologies for gaining further insights into user contexts, however, than in teaching the unique design foundations associated with interaction.
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
Often it is hard to find some programs b/c of the lack of semantic agreement we have.
Something I wanted to point out is that I think I made a mistake when including ITP. Not b/c it isn't a good program, nor that it doesn't have courses on interaction design, but that it's program is not focused on interaction design.
I have gotten suggestions from peers to include Parsons Design & Technology program and the California College of Arts new transdisciplinary design program as well. Both include even heavy components of interaction design, so people should be aware of both. And the suggestions people make in the comments here are all good.
But I think for this article and for myself, it is important to highlight those institutions that have made the commitment/decision to focus on interaction design as the core to the program, and not as a part of a greater whole.
I think there are actually many many more institutions where IxD is taught and taught well around the world. To create a comprehensive list is beyond my scope and interest here-in.
Also, in my history section, I want to clarify that I was not trying to be comprehensive either. I was trying to give a sense of the history, but not to relate it in its totality. That again would be a daunting task for me and for the editors.
Program: http://www.designnumerique.net
A global approach in product and service design.
(where interaction design is just one part of the problem, but the more important)
Their educational model supports the importance of interaction design, one of the corner-stones of their paradigm.
It's a relatively new education, and is recently acquiring momentum in the world of design. Several key-players have begun collaboratting with this department for future design projects.
Quite a suitable addition to your article, I believe...
The program is very similar to the ITP program.