The Cosmonaut

A few days ago I posted something about defining interaction design. Luis Villa replied with a comment that is one hundred times better than the original post. I don’t have his explicit permission to make a post out of it but since he made it public I assume I can. Here it goes:

Sometimes I see patterns…

Information Architecture: how it’s structured
Interaction Design: how it behaves
Information Design/Visual Design: how it looks

Front end
XHTML - How is structured
JS - How it behaves
CSS - How it looks

Backend
Model - Data and structure
Controller - Behaviour
View - the look, the skin of the system

Restaurant (I don’t know if I’m kidding here…)
Kitchen: data, ingredients, structure…
Waiter: behaviour, orders
Table: presentation, look

From my humble point of view, all of these layers in any of the domains (conceptual, logical, physical) has a lot to do with design. Maybe I live in a special place sorrounded by programmers and developers who act_as_designers ;-)

As a pattern, we’ve got three layers: a fundation, an intermediary which routes actions betwwen surface and fundation and a surface, the part that the user thinks is the system (because, from the user’s perspective, behind the surface there’s magic).

I’m not a philosopher, maybe I’m saying stupid things.

Luis Villa

One of the diseases of this age is the multiplicity of books; they doth so overcharge the world that it is not able to digest the abundance of idle matter that is every day hatched and brought forth into the world.

Barnabe Rich (1580-1617)

Seen at Pasta&Vinegar

From the great Mauro Entralgo:

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

There are industrial designers who look at an object and they modify it to improve its features in a specific circumstance. They designed the folding chairs, the anglepoise lamp and the unfolding package for the butter.

There are other designers who look at an object and they modify it with the purpose of worsen its features for any circumstance. They designed the three leg stools, the square-shaped glasses and the sinks with no place for leaving the soap.

I found Juan Leal’s post about Verplank’s definition on Interaction Desing very interesting, although I am no fan of definitions and compartimentations. I’ll jump to the train, however.

My favorite definition/description/whatever goes like this:

Information Architecture: how it’s structured
Interaction Design: how it behaves
Information Design/Visual Design: how it looks

These definitions are not mine and I cannot recall who wrote them first. I’d appreciate any feedback on it. I am also aware that the boudaries between concepts are not clear at all, especially between the last two. They tend to overlap a lot.

A propos of the old discussion on thinkers vs. doers, here’s one possible solution:

(seen on Danilocorci’s flickr)

I know, I know… only stupid jokes recently. I’ll post something serious soon, really.