I don’t buy it. Never have, never will.

I’ve always believed that “Interface Design” is the union of three fields: Visual Design, Interaction Design and Information Design.

Visual covers typography, color, iconography and other graphical elements of the interface. Interaction covers the behavioral aspects of the interface, including workflow, system responses and how the product works with physical devices (like a mouse, stylus or keyboard). Information covers data display, organization, and structure of the interface.

All three relate to the interface. Getting all three to work in harmony with each other is where a good interface comes from. Therefore, it’s these three fields that combine into what I consider to be true Interface Design.

Now, I may just be splitting jargon hairs, and the bigger picture that I call Interface Design may simply just be Product Design, and that would make me just as happy. Maybe that’s what Cooper is growing towards. But to say Interface Design is a part of Interaction Design, which is a part of something bigger does those of us in the field no bit of good.

Interaction Design or Experience Design will never cover the ground that includes a visual element or informational element. The words just aren’t broad enough, nor do they carry enough weight.

Interface Design is seems to get a bad rap as a job title. Mostly, IMHO, because people haven’t taken repsonsiblity for what building the interface requires — A visual piece, an informational piece, and an interaction piece.

But if the word needs to change, Experience Design is simply NOT it. Product Design is more like it.

Andrei Herasimchuk
Interface Designer

Actually, the AIGA is using the term Experience Design to mean exactly what you refer to as Interface Design, and they are an organization filled with visual and information designers. If anything, I think Experience Design may be *too* broad a term, in that it implicates every touchpoint that people have with a product and its brand, and implies that “experience” (whatever that really is) can be fully designed.

Interface Design suffers from its history, in that it is too often considered synonymous with GUI design. Too frequently, GUI is considered something that can be added after the bulk of development is done, as more of a look-and-feel “paint job”. I think it’s important for us as practitioners to encourage the view that the work we do is strategic to businesses, and needs to be initiated at the start of the development cycle.

Although I concur that Product Design (or better yet, Product Definition) is perhaps a better term, Experience Design, for the moment, seems to have some steam behind it (though arguments continue), and rather than spend the time arguing about what the perfect term is, I’d prefer to spend the energy encouraging people to see the business and human need for this type of work, and its strategic importance to product development.

I would also like to generalize slightly your triad of “fields” to encompass the design of FORM, BEHAVIOR, and CONTENT, which I think is a bit more inclusive of such disciplines as Industrial Design and IA.

Robert M. Reimann
Director of Design R&D
Cooper | Humanizing Technology

So why are people in the field even considering Experience Design as a term?

Experience Design is a fluff term, meaningless jargon, that does nothing more than add more meaningless jargon on top of already jargon-heavy job titles. The AIGA is doing us no favors if they are pushing this term.

Andrei

A possible definition (among many) of Experience Design is:

A term describing a “holistic” approach to design that encompasses all user/customer touchpoints with a product/client, including marketing/advertising communications, support/CRM, the product/service itself and how it behaves, and how the product ultimately interacts with the greater environment.

An alternative (narrower) definition might be:

A term describing the collection of practices and/or disciplines that work together to create interactive artifacts, systems, or environments, primarily used for the purpose of engaging a discussion in how said practices interrelate and collaborate.

I think Experience Design is only a “fluff” term if we allow it to be. But in any case, the argument over names is far less interesting to me than what “it” (whatever it’s called) *is* and how it gets done.

Robert M. Reimann
Director of Design R&D
Cooper | Humanizing Technology

What could be more important than the one of the highest profile Interaction Design consultancies dropping “Interaction Design” from their name?

Please explain!

I got nothing out of Cooper’s talk. Reimann’s presentation was very good though! Too bad he didn’t have time to share more.

Thanks Brad for filing this report and for giving me the inspiration that I needed to start the dialog with Alan. While Kathryn is busy ‘doing business’, we’ll focus on ‘creating business’ for the benefit of all of our futures…both are needed.