Page 64 -

Interview 33

try and bring them together in some sort of thematic YR: Finally, how do you see interaction design mov-
way. It's often mind-boggling to bring a software ing in the next five years? More of the same kind of
product that's been thrown together into any kind of problems with new emerging technologies? Or do
coherent framework. It's easy to write a shopping list you think there are going to be more challenges, es-
of observations, but we want to assemble a larger pecially with the hardwarelsoftware integration?
structure and framework and that takes several weeks GS: I think there will be different constraints as new
to construct. We need time to reflect and stew on technologies arise. No matter what we are designing,
what was done and what maybe should have been we have to understand the constraints of the imple-
done. We need to highlight the issues and put them mentation. And yes, different things will happen when
into some kind of larger order. If you always operate we get more into designing hardwarelsoftware prod-
at a low level of detail, like worrying and critiquing ucts. There are different kinds of cost constraints and
the size of a button, you end up solving only local is- different kinds of interactions you can do when there is
sues. You never really get to the big interaction de- special purpose hardware involved. Whereas designing
sign problems of the product, the ones that should be the interaction for applications requires visual design
solved first. expertise, designing information appliances or other
hardware products requires experience with product
YR: If you're given a prototype or product to evalu- design. Definitely, there will be some new challenges.
ate and you discover that it is redly bad, what do you Hopefully, in the next few years, people will stop
do? looking for interaction design rules. There's been a bit
GS: Well, I never have the guts to go in and say of a push towards making interaction design a science
something is fundamentally flawed. And that's maybe lately. Maybe this has happened because so many peo-
not the best strategy anyway, because it's your word ple are trying to do it and they don't know where to
against theirs. Instead, I think it is always about mak- start because they don't have much experience. I'm
ing the case for why something is wrong or flawed. hoping people will start understanding that interaction
Sometimes I think we are like lawyers. We have to as- design is a design discipline-that there are some guide-
semble the case for what's wrong with the product. lines and ways to do good practice-and creativity com-
We have to make a convincing argument. A lot of bined with analytical thinking are necessary to arrive at
times I think the kind of argumentation we do is very good products. And then, even more so than now, it is
much like what lawyers do. going to get interesting and be a really exciting time.