I notice Dave that there isn’t a single “visual” in this blog post, I guess that implies that there are times when other means of communication are effective. :-)

OK, seriously now Dave, I think you mis-characterize my post. I wasn’t questioning the need for visual design skills. I was pointing out that what we see in a visual artifact varies widely based on our level of sophistication at “reading” that artifact. Building on that observation, I went on to say that for those of us who work in dimensions that are not explicitly visual, there is an extra level of challenge communicating with non-specialists.

JS

1. V-8 for louder engine noise and vibration
2. No windshield wipers (because you’re never going to drive it in the rain, anyway)
3. Comes with a flat-bed truck so you can transport it to club events
4. Steering wheel a foot above your head
5. Driver’s seat permanently reclined
6. Optional chrome & leather fringe packages
7. The only car that increases in value when you drive it off the lot
8. Four-year waiting list
9. List price for mid-sized sedan: $56,000 (not including truck)
10. Klaxon

re: multi-disciplinary – I mean to say that the practice of IxD transcends any single form. It requires an understanding of interactivity, 3-dimensionality, graphic communication/semiotics, service and space. It does not replace them, but supports them.

re: “leads people through positive experiences” – I’m not much for Hemmingway’s pithy style. I believe that the addendum gives it soulfulness and purpose, as well as adds an understanding beyond that which most design disciplines speak save Service Design (but that’s a whole other issue). Your brief statement is exactly what I’m trying to avoid in fact b/c it does not ask why and as the MEROVINGIAN from the Matrix would say, “Without why you have nothing”. So I don’t find it superflous or ancillary at all.

BTW, your statement about “art direction” is an interesting one. In a way it sorta rings true to practice where the IxD (or UX Designer) often is in the position of directing the overall strategy of design and through the use of evaluation techniques ends up being the final judge of design success. Interesting.

* “…multi-disciplinary design discipline…” is redundant by definition.

* “…uses human understanding to manage the growth of complexity…” turns the practice into art direction. “Managing” is not designing.

* …”that lead people through positive experiences.” I’ve never been a fan of defintions that try to reinforce what should be an assumption or common sense. This last part of this definition weakens the definition due to adding words that aren’t needed.

Can simply make it: “The Interaction Designer designs the behaviors of systems or products.” However, there is nothing in your IxD definition that sounds “multi-discplinary” at all. In fact, it sounds very much like a silo.

I had to read that paragraph several times to get what I think you mean to say.