My Definition of Interaction Design
Interaction design is currently a process by which the use-oriented, complex qualities of artifacts, systems, environments, and situations are formed and defined, through appropriate methods, to be desirable.
1. Introduction
It is an intimidating thing to offer up a definition for a field that is presently wrapped up in debate over definitions. In interaction design’s relatively brief history, many definitions have been offered up. Hopefully, offering up one more definition is not a practice in making a noisy conversation louder.
However, the present fuzziness of the line drawn around interaction design makes it quite easy and attractive to submit yet another version. It’s a road well-traveled, and there is an advantage gained in wrestling with influential thoughts and definitions already made. The definition offered here is shamelessly the synthesis of other thinkers: renowned authors and speakers as well as not-yet-renowned professors and classmates.
The main goal–or bias, perhaps–of this particular definition is ductility for the purpose of accommodating change that is bound to occur over time, involvement of a wide array of disciplines, and varying cultural sensitivities to ethics and aesthetics. This does mean the definition risks being soft and ambiguous. It is not meant as heuristic for any current, specific challenges facing the interaction design community—aside from how we define of interaction design.
The main goal (or bias, perhaps) of this particular definition is ductility for the purpose of accommodating change that is bound to occur over time, involvement of a wide array of disciplines, and varying cultural sensitivities to ethics and aesthetics.
To help digest the definition, the reasoning behind it will be presented by dissecting the definition into phrases and single words analyzing each. In so doing, some contemporary and more specific ideas will be attached to the terms and phrases in order to show how the definition can be appropriate for contemporary trends in interaction design.
2. Dissection & Analysis
One of the last-minute additions to the definition is that of the word “currently”. Many histories of interaction design often begin well before it was overtly known as such. And, amongst these histories, there is generally some agreement on iterations or phases in which a field or fields concerned with the creation of interactive objects held distinct definitions or defining practices that evolved from something else and/or into something else. This is undoubtedly in part due to the rapid change and introduction of new technologies as well as the needs of a society in responding to such change. The current iteration of interaction design is hardly at rest, and there is reason to believe the radical evolution of the current era will continue for some time. Perhaps a timestamp is assumed on all definitions, but it seemed appropriate to overtly stamp this definition to point at the obvious and healthy lack of stasis in interaction design.
Interaction design is understood as many things when it comes to categories including a discipline, area of study, applied art, liberal art, and so on. Many of these categorizations are true and helpful depending on why or how a party might need interaction to be framed. In this regard, they are beneficial categorizations. Furthermore, many of them are not mutually exclusive and need not be contested. For the sake of the definition’s bias toward ductility, interaction design is labeled as a process. This means that it is a series of actions or operations conducted toward an end. This also means that interaction design is process-oriented and can be appropriate by such categorizations as discipline or applied art. This allows the definition to be used in as many possible–yet reasonable–contexts.
The term “use-oriented” refers to qualities that are directly or indirectly experienced by a user in relation to an interactive artifact. Dan Saffer categorizes four approaches to interaction design: user-centered, activity-centered, systems design, and genius design (32). While each approach varies, they are all still concerned with how an artifact will be used.
The term “use-oriented” refers to qualities that are directly or indirectly experienced by a user in relation to an interactive artifact.
In the book Thoughtful Interaction Design, authors Löwgren and Stolterman list structural, functional, ethical, and aesthetic as use-oriented qualities. They elaborate further:
“Design of structural qualities demands knowledge of technology and material. Design of functional qualities demands knowledge of technology use. Design of ethical qualities demands knowledge of relevant values and ideals. Design of aesthetic qualities demands an ability to appreciate and compose.” (45)
This list is certainly not exhaustive of qualities that could be considered use-oriented. Experimental psychologist BJ Fogg’s work over the past two decades insists that “virtually all mature end-user applications—whether on the desktop, mobile, or web-based—will eventually incorporate elements of motivation and persuasion” (248). Jon Kolko states that “a poetic interaction is one that resonates immediately but yet continues to inform later–it is one that causes reflection, and one that relies heavily on a state of emotional awareness” [emphasis added] (104). Thus, qualities of persuasion and emotion could be considered as use-oriented. Other qualities–discovered and undiscovered as pertaining to interaction design–would likely still fall under the banner of “use-oriented”.
The term also distinguishes the process of interaction design from processes such as those concerned specifically with technical performance which are commonly associated with engineering. However, it should be noted that the practice of interaction design–due to its trans-disciplinary nature–informs and is informed by other such processes to varying degrees.
The next term to be analyzed is “complex”. Complexity is a state of being intricate, having interconnected parts that are often not easily comprehended. David Malouf, professor of Interaction Design at Savannah College of Art & Design, addresses common misconceptions of the term, pointing out that complication is not the same as complexity just as “easy” and “complex” are not mutually exclusive. Interaction design is concerned in a fundamental way with the management of complexity.
Interaction design is concerned in a fundamental way with the management of complexity.
Digital technology quickly introduces complexity and the consequent need for the management of said complexity. Examples of this management can be seen in the use of metaphors and abstractions such as graphical user interfaces. Many definitions of interaction design claim digital or information technology as the only area of concern. While it is likely the most prevalent technology in which interaction design is currently being practiced, digital technology is not the only platform of concern. Many electric or mechanical but non-digital, use-oriented artifacts have complexity that could be managed through interaction design principles and methodologies. Furthermore, use-oriented services and social systems are being developed with interaction design principles and methodologies.
This trend goes hand-in-hand with the next section of the definition: “artifacts, systems, environments, and situations”. This is a list of all the platforms with which interaction design is concerned. Artifacts are generally understood as objects or products: desktop computers, mp3 players, appliances, etc. Systems can encompass computer operating systems, human-based systems of services, eco-systems comprised of products and services, and even social structures. In response to the rise of pervasive computing, Malcom McCullough states that “interaction design must address how people move around, how they assimilate, and what kinds of local responses they encounter…As ever, design is for active, human life; but without great precedent, now some contexts become active as well (173)”. Also on the topic of pervasive computing, Adam Greenfield claims that whereas “personal computing is something that we’ve historically conceived of as being largely independent of context” (72), ubiquitous computing is posed to “colonize everyday life with information technology” at the scale of the human body, the room, the building, the street, and beyond (48-65). The environment and the situation are becoming infused with use-oriented complexity.
A critique of an interaction design reveals the importance of the formative aspects of the interaction design process:
“[T]hose versed in visual communication have known for a long time that form and content are inseparable. Interaction design, however, has a different intellectual tradition. There is a strong tendency to think about information as something to be structured and architected in its pure form, then provided to the user through an interface that makes access as efficient and comprehensive as possible…As digital devices are used by more and more people for viewing video, playing games, and participating in social media, the distinction between content and interface is becoming increasingly untenable and unproductive.” (Bardzell, Bolter, Löwgren 33-34)
While the definition offered in this document does not issue the exact proximity form must have to content in the interaction process, it does still claim there is a formative aspect to the process. Form is tied to aesthetic, and the definition intends the broadest understanding of the term–that which is pleasing to the senses. Form can then be that which is concerned with not just the static visual qualities but the animated, haptic, sonic, and even the olfactory.
A definition of interaction design issued in 2001 states that the main action of interaction design is to define (Forlizzi and Reimann 1). Considering the aforementioned importance of that formative aspect of the interaction design process, defining as the sole action in the process seems somewhat lacking. Nevertheless, defining is still worth including alongside forming. Löwgren and Stolterman provide a basis for this:
“Every interaction design will lead to a product, a digital artifact that has a unique gestalt. Developing ways of describing, examining, criticizing, and categorizing the overall character of such products should be a fundamental priority for our field and for anyone who wants to become a thoughtful designer.” (138)
Not only is it important for the process to be one concerned with articulation of itself for the sake of the designer, but it is important in developing a rhetoric amongst designers, critics, and even users. This is undoubtedly a healthy quality to have surrounding any design field, but it is perhaps very acute at the moment due to a lack of interaction design criticism (Löwgren and Stolterman, 139) and design terms and standards unique to interaction design—especially in regards to pervasive computing (Greenfield 188-190). Such rhetoric would attribute to and help make known a wide tool belt of methods and how they could be appropriated for each interaction design. This leads us into the next area of dissection.
Not only is it important for the process to be one concerned with articulation of itself for the sake of the designer, but it is important in developing a rhetoric amongst designers, critics, and even users.
A method is a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art. Whereas the definition (and the analysis thereof) up to this point has taken a process-oriented view of interaction design, it acknowledges the larger categorization as a discipline or art. It pulls theories and methods from other design disciplines. Some common methods in a contemporary interaction design process inform contextual research, ideation, prototyping, and user testing. Due to every artifact having a unique context for which it should be designed and every design process being executed in a unique context, Löwgren and Stolterman argue for a thoughtful approach to methods:
“A method is never simply used, but rather appropriated: the designer has the responsibility of assessing the nature and role of a method, its possible outcomes, and underlying values, and then to add it to her toolbox and apply it skillfully in relevant situations.” (64)
This is why the definition adds the adjective of “appropriate” to “methods”. It therefore asserts that there is not one single, ideal method or sequence of methods. Rather, it encourages a methodology–that is, a study of methods.
Lastly and perhaps the most loaded of terms in the definition is “desirable”. Bill Moggridge uses this term when he claims that interaction design involves “creating designs that are useful, desirable, and accessible” (659). Since the definition offered in this document specifically states a focus on use-oriented qualities, the solitary term “desirable” encapsulates usefulness and accessibility as desirable use-oriented qualities. It also includes other aspects. Kolko claims that which is beautiful, elegant and appropriate is desirable (84). ‘Desirable’ is also a useful term in that it assumes an entity that desires; a beholder, a user.
‘Desirable‘ is also a useful term in that it assumes an entity that desires; a beholder, a user.
3. Conclusion
Definitions are often formed with a goal in mind. This might be to prescribe how products of the interaction design process should be critiqued. It might be to outline a curriculum. It might be to defend a position. It might be a means to influence the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction. Some level of bias is probably inevitable.
In the definition offered in this document, there are plentiful aspects of the interaction design process that many–including this author–would consider very important to the field and even process that is interaction design. Topics such as contextual research, abductive reasoning, core design skills are–for better or for worse–are boiled down and generalized for the sake of what is hopefully a succinct, ductile definition. Even the distinguishing terms that did make it into the definition leave a lot open to interpretation.
What then is the motivation for such a definition? How can this be helpful?
As mentioned several times throughout the analysis, ductility is a goal. This is for a few reasons. The first has to do with the goal of re-enforcing how fast and radical change has come to the field of interaction design and other similar fields. This evolution should definitely be expected for the short-term, probably for the long-term, and possibly terminally. Definitions concerned with specifics should then be viewed as beneficial in the short-term and should constantly be re-evaluated.
Similarly, it is in hopes of establishing blurry lines on what will likely always be a trans-disciplinary process. There should be a freedom for designers, projects, and curriculum to move freely. A definition of interaction design should be agile enough to take on different shapes and slip in and out of different spheres according to the needs of a designers, students, and educators.
A definition of interaction design should be agile enough to take on different shapes and slip in and out of different spheres according to the needs of a designers, students, and educators.
The last purpose is somewhat paradoxical and self-centered in that it hopes the definition will be able to be referenced for some time to come. There must be some merit in a definition that lasts.
Bibliography
Bardzell, Jeffrey, Jay Bolter, and Jonas Löwgren. “Interaction Criticism: Three Readings of an Interaction Design, and What They Get Us”. Interactions. Mar. 2010. 32-37. Print.
Fogg, BJ. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 2003. Print.
Forlizzi, Jodi and Robert Reimann. “Interaction Designers: What We Are, What We Do, & What We Need to Know.” Fourth AIGA Advance for Design, 2001, Scottsdale, AZ. goodgestreet.com, n.d. PDF. 30 January 2010.
Kolko, Jon. Thoughts on Interaction Design. Burlington: Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 2010. Print.
Löwgren, Jonas and Erik Stolterman. Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective of Information Technology. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT Press, 2007. Print.
Malouf, David. Theory of Interaction Design [IACT 701]. Savannah College of Art & Design. Gulfstream Center for Industrial and Furniture Design, Savannah, GA. Winter 2010.
Moggridge, Bill. Designing Interactions. MIT Press, 2007. Print.
Saffer, Dan. Designing for Interaction: Creating Innovative Applications and Devices. 2nd ed. Berkley: New Riders, 2010. Print.
Tags: definition, interaction design, research
