20-04-2006 by Fabio Sergio

Tracing the boundaries of Interaction Design.

I wanted my first entry for Convivio’s new website to be closely related to the Network’s very mission: human-centered design of interactive technologies.
Unsurprisingly I quickly found myself dealing with definitions of Interaction Design.

Funny things, definitions.
As soon as one is put together it feels as if the borders it imposes on what it tries to expound are all of a sudden too constrictive, limiting.
I guess it all has to do with the difference between the power of evocation vs. that of description.
Evoking something leaves the audience free to create varying mental models of what’s being summoned, while describing it is more of an attempt at shaping a precise and controlled framework of common comprehension.
This is also the power of definitions, which are descriptive in nature (if not prescriptive even), and thus leaving little room for interpretation can feel limiting.
Funny things, definitions.

Further reflection brought back memories of an entry I had written a few years ago, and fter a bit of indecision I decided that it was worth re-posting it, rather than writing something similar, as I feel it still captures the essence of what I wanted to say with this very entry as well.

Peter Van Dijck introduced me to the concept of “boundary objects“:

“Artifacts, documents and perhaps even vocabulary that can help people from different communities build a shared understanding.
Boundary objects will be interpreted differently by the different communities, and it is an acknowledgement and discussion of these differences that enables a shared understanding to be formed.”

Van Dijck also pointed to Brian Marick’s interesting paper, “Boundary Objects” (PDF, 76 Kb):

“A community of practice is a group of people who do a certain type of work … and derive some measure of their identity from their work.
A community of interest involves members of distinct communities of practice, coming together to solve a particular problem of common concern.
If X is a boundary object, people from different communities of practice can use it as a common point of reference. They can all agree they are talking about X.
But the different (communities of practice) are not actually talking about the same thing, they attach different meanings to X.
Despite (these) different interpretations people use boundary objects as a means of translation.
Boundary objects are plastic enough to adapt to changing needs, (they) are working arrangements, adjusted as needed.”

Simplifying things down a bit we could paraphrase all of the above saying that boundary objects act as fertile ground for semantic confusion to grow new meanings out of existing terms.
A shared vocabulary with fuzzy, malleable definitions.
It is up to the community of interest to be willing to relinquish purity to collectively attribute new signifieds to pre-existing, shared signifiers.

In light of these considerations I find myself thinking of the Interaction Design community and wondering.
It is quite obvious that ours is a “community of interest” rather than a “community of practice”, and that “boundary objects” abound.
Usability Specialists, Information Architects, Software and Hardware Engineers, Experience, Graphic and Product Designers are all in one way or another often involved in shaping the dialogue that develops between a person and the tools he/she uses to achieve his/her personal goals, whether communicational in nature or not. Problems are tackled by all of these players from a slightly different perspective, with widely different toolboxes, and some of them will at times claim that “their approach” is the best, or most complete, or best-proven to provide solutions and answers.
In other words Interaction Design is still a field where uncertainty runs high and often fuels recursive discussions.

We often attribute this status of constant flux to the discipline’s short history, but a thought surfaces now.
The term “Interaction Design” itself could easily fit the description of a boundary object…but what about the very practice of Interaction Design?
Could the variety of backgrounds, methodologies and deliverables be seen in this light as well?
Could it be that Interaction Design as a discipline exists only as a space of flows, dynamically outlined by the intersecting boundaries of the aforementioned neighbouring disciplines?
A space outlined by shifting limits, where the Interaction Designer often finds him/herself playing the role of the integrator, thus needing to master many different grammars to be effective?
Could the dynamic fluidity inherent to the definition of interaction itself, as “a mutual or reciprocal action or influence”, ultimately inform a perpetually liquid, ductile, plastic vocabulary of practice?

This much I had written.
Still feel the need for a definition of Interaction Design?
Here’s how the Interaction Design Association’s defines Interaction Design:

“Interaction design … illuminates the relationship between people and the interactive products they use. … Its focus is on defining the complex dialogues that occur between people and interactive devices of many types.
Good interaction design effectively communicates a system’s interactivity and functionality, defines behaviors that communicate a system’s responses to user interactions, reveals both simple and complex workflows, informs users about system state changes, and prevents user error.
Interaction design is grounded in an understanding of real users (goals, tasks, experiences, needs, and wants) and balances these needs with business goals and technological capabilities.”

I guess it will work just fine, for the time being.

Posted in Interaction Design | No Comments »