A collection of thoughts post...?

Some more thoughts on design and the understanding of the context interaction design as just wanted to clarify some thoughts and tie design understanding into the interaction design process, and in addition to tie the reading that is on going .

The article analysed questions what puts the design in interaction design and have just wanted to reflect and pick through some of the points made.

"Interaction design is a blended endeavor of process, methodology, and attitude. Discussions of process and methodology are pervasive in the interaction design milieu and often revolve around a perceived tension between process and methodology and the role of design within this discipline. To be clear, process is the overarching design framework."

What puts the design in interaction design? To answer this question, we need to think about the purpose of design. Design is a loaded term that has a pliable meaning. In a moment of clarity, Christopher Alexander defined the purpose of design: “The ultimate object of design is form.”

- Based on this statement the role of design is understood by describing its form and then to identify the need for design. "Form does not always result from a new design process."

"To address new problems through innovation or the modification of existing patterns, you must design. A pattern is a solution for a particular context.Designed behavior is not invisible. Sometimes it is obfuscated; at other times, it is apparent or even obvious.

Most importantly, designed behavior dictates the flow between action and reaction, which is the basis of an interaction. A user takes an action through an affordance, which in turn causes a reaction in the presentation layer.

- The article ties up with 5 dimensions to interaction design

• 1-D—words—which are interactions
• 2-D—visual representations—which include typography, diagrams, icons, and other graphics with which users interact
• 3-D—physical objects or space—with which or within which users interact
• 4-D—time—within which users interact—for example, content that changes over time such as sound, video, or animation
• 5-D—behavior—including action, or operation, and presentation, or reaction

- I think these can be thought on further as not sure if agree with all and some of the remaining points raised in the remaining of the article, intend to compare and contrast between several more views in order to gain clearer perspective.

Things to think on further ?

- The major point from this is that interaction is central to the action made either directly or indirectly - again questions in the line of how/does the affordance link to the previous action made in an old system?

for references above article from uxmatters http://www.uxmatters.com/MT/archives/000209.php

- This discussion centres around heavily the ideas discussed by Paul Dourish in "Where the action is" particular intriguing how to embodied interaction is formed as such with social and tangible computing - is the way in which embodied interaction design move towards designs of systems cover all that is required from understanding the actions and affordances of the actions involved?

- A second and as interesting article which ties in coupling, which again is discussed by Dourish
and talks of coupling idea between actions and tools in which the meaning is created, again to take apart in next post and again will benefit from reading several more perspectives.
coupling between user action and functional information

- Finally so can design just be simply a two piece puzzle ???

“Understanding the context of a design problem and creating a solution that fits are two pieces of the same puzzle: design.”