The Cosmonaut

I would say that Agustin Jiménez’s was the best talk we had at our recent “Desconferencia” (a gathering of professionals where everybody gives a small presentation).

He enlightened us on the convergence point between interaction design and biotechnology. The main point was that biological systems are being created with more and more levels of abstraction and that one day in the near future designers will be needed to determine how these systems will be used by people. The fact that DNA sequences and machine code have a very similar structure (I am simplifying here, I know) leads to the building of new levels of abstraction just as we did on machine code, making it possible to design biosystems that have sensory interfaces a person could interact with:

Have you ever think about a cell as a machine?. They really behave like it whether they are yeast or pluripotent cells in your bone marrow. In fact, as Drew Endy define them, they act as computational systems. They receive inputs, and behave accordingly as outputs. Cells have measurements tools, priorities to satisfy and self awareness of different kinds.

As interaction designers we can apply all the inherited knowledge in our discipline to new horizons like biotech. It’s just a new framework with new variables.

Agustín Jiménez is an interaction designer who always has one foot at the side of technology and another one on the biomedical edge. His post on the talk: Biotechnology and Interaction Design is worth a relaxed reading.

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

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.