I was going to write a post today about the ways in which design is being discussed, viewed, and used by individuals and organizations. My colleague, Matty Snyder, and I have spent a lot of time discussing this and alas, he beat me to it and wrote it better than I could have. Check it out.
As I was reading Verbalising the Visual, I came across a passage that seemed to set of a big, fun, messy string of thoughts about the ways things are interpreted. Clarke states:
It is sometimes thought that interpreting images of functional artefacts, such as a food processor or digital camera, is easier than interpreting works of fine art, be they painted, sculpted, photographed, or otherwise. At least the utilitarian, functional dimensions of the artefacts might provide a common basis for understanding. Without any comparable basis in the practical, fine art artefacts are judged to be far less contained.
Are the words functional, utilitarian, and practical problematic here? And what do these descriptions mean for interaction design, where all of those are balled into one? Continue reading »
So this week I embarked upon a new journey in my HCI/d education in Indiana University’s Master’s program. The ship I am on is called Interaction Culture, and it is headed by Captain Jeffrey Bardzell. In this class we will look at how theories in the humanities, specifically aesthetics and critical theory can be applied to the field of HCI/d. Looking at literature and drawing upon the wealth of philosophical debate and experience in the arts brings up the obvious question: How does this apply to HCI/d practice? This can be quickly followed with thoughts such as “I am a practitioner so I have no use for theory,” and “While you are theorizing I will be busy actually designing stuff.” Continue reading »
