Dan Saffer has said some harsh things about Aza Raskin and other Interaction Design Neo-Cons - and I think that they needed to be said.
Dan says that Aza and friends are too into the “computer as datastore” model of reality. Like Dan, I am a fan of the “computer as facilitator of communication” model. I too have to say, like Dan, I learnt a lot from Aza’s father Jef.
A comment on Dan’s post reads as follows:
I think Raskin’s definition is a fairly good stake in the ground, as good as any at describing what -computers do-.
And you are right to point out this is not what computers are -used for-.
The aged old two sides to the development coin.
I did not see his presentation, but, I do not believe he is presenting this as an activity centered definition??
While its important for engineers to realise the limitations of engineering-out design, its also worth designers noting that there are no rules of architecture for castles in the clouds.
For me this raises some wider questions about what interaction designers do and what they do it to/with. Are we an extension of the enterprise/data architects, just putting the final skin on their work? Do we get a say in database design if that design affects the user experience?
It was never my intention to slam Aza Raskin. He and I have different philosophies about what a computer is and should be is all.
Hi Dan,
perhaps “slam” is too strong a word, but I think it is close to the mark in this case - you disagree with what he said, and I can see where you’re coming from based on what I know about what he said.
I’m not trying to start WWIII here
It is a significant day when someone whose views I respect (yourself) argues against the principles of someone whose views I am interested in finding out more about. Maybe I’m projecting my own “design vs engineering” battles here - if I’ve gone too far, say so and I’ll tone the title down to something less confrontational. “Dan disagrees with Aza” perhaps.
Best regards, Andrew