« fonts that look like carbon iq | main | choices »
from my latest odd quest: What is Interaction Design and What Does It Mean to Information Designers - by Craig Marion
"In 1988, Alexander Associates sponsored INtertainment, the first annual conference bringing together people from all corners of the interactive entertainment business. People came from such diverse industries as personal computers, video games, broadcast and cable television, optical media, museums, and amusement parks. Over the course of the two days, a debate about the meaning of the word "interactive" raged through every session, disrupting carefully planned panels and presentations. People seemed to regard "interactivity" as the unique cultural discovery of the electronic age, and they demanded a coherent definition. Several speakers tried to oblige, but no one succeeded.""
By the way - I didn't see it linked to that page, but part two of that paper is also online.
Today really *is* my day for being pedantic...just to clarify that Craig's article was originally posted May, 1999. I'd hate for any Elegant Hack readers to think. based on the blog entry title, that it was Craig who was revisiting explored territory :).
Sigh...what a difference a comma makes. Please read the last sentence as "I'd hate for any Elegant Hack readers to think, blah, blah, blah."
my point was simply they were fighting about the definition of interaction design back in 88, and no one could define interaction then... these arguments come back over and over.
The rest of the article is just terrific, and not particularly dated.
Excellent article, thanks for poiting it out.
Worth noting that that specific quote comes from Brenda Laurel's Computer as Theater. A book you should all read.