Interaction Design is dead. What now?
Ralph Ammer

I’m not sure that you’re making the actual case that Interaction Design is dead here. I think what you’re speaking to is more of the limitations of a design process and maybe how that process is taught. If you’re not expanding your practice to include concepts from biology, systems, or even psychology, then you are limited by your tools and methods.

Even the concepts you cite as “Natural Design” are alive and well in design education and in industry. As a student at SVA’s Interaction Design program, we actively express relationships, pursue creative investigation, and encourage craft and creation. In industry, Tellart and Neri Oxman’s work embodies many of the things you advocate for.

Perhaps we should be critical how in business, success is measured more by user engagement rather than their sustainability metrics. In that case, the system in where we measure value and success is flawed, outdated, and rooted in principles of industrialism. Perhaps that is influencing the way design is explained and disseminated, especially in this era when “Design Thinking” is taught and reduced to a 12-week workshop.

Good designers are not just devoted to their craft but their practice.

Aside from making things beautiful, I strongly believe Interaction Design is a field that is well positioned to analyze, question, and propose ways we can find improved interactions between the biological, technological, sociological realms.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.