Defining Interaction Design

I set out writing my paper on the history of interaction design with the idea that I’d try not to define it. That way I wouldn’t have to deal with defending my definition. I’m finding that a definition may indeed be necessary.

Part of the reason is that the Coroflot Design Firm Database lists 384 companies in the US that do interaction design. I couldn’t believe it, so I selected one at random. The results were less than spectacular. I simply can’t believe that a company with a website like this knows a single thing about interaction design (note the disappearing navigation elements). Ugh.

Dear readers of what is your definition of interaction design?

5 thoughts on “Defining Interaction Design”

  1. Sometimes I find it hard to believe that a man with a Website like this knows anything about usability, but he does.

    I think IAwiki defines ID best:
    “Interaction Design aims to integrate the physical and cognitive product interface into a successful whole in order to create understandable, usable and enjoyable computer-based products”

    More at

  2. I don’t know about a definition for ID but I have issues with your comment that design and art are two different things. If that were true, we would all be driving Pontiac Azteks.

  3. Tonight Robert Reimann gave a talk at my Experience Design class.

    Here’s the definition of Interaction Design according to Cooper Interaction Design:

    “Interaction Design is dedicated to defining the behavior of artifacts, environments and systems (i.e. products).

    It is also concerned with defining the form of products as it relates to their behavior and use.”

  4. The definition of ID is to create while things are like interacting with the thingy that you are like trying to like create… oh hell I been reading this website for like 2 years and still have no clue what it is you do. You need to create

Comments are closed.