Mr. Winograd spends some time defending his predictions, citing the impractically of assumptions and the underlying shift in the public’s perception and acceptance of technology. And it is in this uneasiness that Winograd’s true brilliance shines - he foresees the need (and subsequent rise) of the Interaction Designer as a specialized profession.

That’s right. This guy saw your job in 1997. Do you remember the web back in 1997?

He sets the stage for this by painting a historical review of technology forcing the emergence of new specialized professions. Just as the engineer and architect use specialized cross-discipline skills to perform their duties; so too will the emerging Interaction Designer: part engineer, part graphic designer, all user advocate.

Winograd is quick to point out that this skill set is not something that a “graphic designer” designing “web pages” is an expert at; nor is it in the realm of the software engineer (who’s conflict of interest between what is easy and what looks nice excludes them from the argument). No, it is to become a specialized field spanning across both design, engineering and cognitive psychology.

Mr. Winograd, your foresight is as clear as Vanover Bush. If I was to remove the first paragraph of your essay, one might be under the impression that it was a current reflection on the industry.

Thank you dear sir.

From Computing Machinery to Interaction Design

(Psst. This is a must read for current/wannabe Interaction Designers.)

For those of you who don’t know, Charles Eames (along with his wife Ray) personified high-design in the late 50’s to 70’s, with major contributions to almost every field of design including industrial design, furniture design, art, graphic design, film and architecture. You may know Charles and Ray from their landmark film “The Powers of 10″, or perhaps you’ve sat in their groundbreaking molded plywood chair (or a knock-off of one).

Over 30 years has passed since Mr. Eames has defined design, and I’d argue that it holds as true today as it did back then. Once, I was lucky enough to hear an audio recording of the interview (and modified for the film Design Q&A), and feel like I should listen to it daily as a design affirmation. I’ve transcribed the interview below, but I believe the original recording is part of the The Films of Charles & Ray Eames collection (which I’d like for Christmas if anyone wants to know.) Hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

What is Design?
An interview with Charles Eames

The following statement by Charles is an expression of his approach to the design process. These words (…) and his answers to the questions are an explanation of the Eames philosophy and background material for this record of the work of the Eames Office were asked by Madame Amic and answered by Charles. The questions and answers were the conceptual basis of the exhibit What is Design? And edited and slightly changed version of the questions were used as the bass of the 1972 film Design Q&A.

What is your definition of “design”?
A plan for arranging elements in such a way as to best accomplish a particular purpose.

Is design an expression of art (an art form)?
The design is an expression of the purpose. It may (if it is good enough) later be judged as art.

Is design a craft for industrial purposes?
No – but design may be a solution to some industrial problems.

What are the boundaries of design?
What are the boundaries of problems?

Is design a discipline that concerns itself with only one part of the environment?
No.

Is it a method of general expression?
No – it is a method of action.

Is design a creation of an individual?
No – because to be realistic one must always admit the influence of those who have gone before.

…or a creation of a group?
Often.

Is there a design ethic?
There are always design constraints and these usually include an ethic.

Does design imply the idea of products that are necessarily useful?
Yes – even though the use might be surely subtle.

Is it able to cooperate in the creation of works reserved solely for pleasure?
Who would say that pleasure is not useful?

Ought form to derive from the analysis of function?
The great risk here is that the analysis may not be complete.

Can the computer substitute for the designer?
Probably, in some special cases, but usually the computer is an aid to the designer.

Does design imply industrial manufacture?
Some designs do and some do not – depending on the nature of the design and the requirements.

Is design an element of industrial policy?
Certainly; as in any other aspect of quality, obvious or subtle, of the product. It seems that anything can be an element in policy.

Ought design to care about lowering costs?
A product often becomes more useful if the costs are lowered without harming the quality.

Does the creation of design admit constraint?
Design depends largely on constraints.

What constraints?
The sum of all constraints. Here is one of the few effective keys to the design problem – the ability of the designer to recognize as many of the constraints as possible – his willingness and enthusiasm for working within these constraints – the constraints of price, of size, of strength, balance, of surface, of time, etc.; each problem has its own peculiar list.

Does design obey laws?
Aren’t constraints enough?

Ought the final product to bear the trademark of the designer? Of the research office?
In some cases, one may seem appropriate. In some cases, the other, and certainly in some cases both.

What is the relation of design to the world of fashion (current trends)?
The objects of fashion have usually been designed with the particular constraints of fashion in mind.

Is design ephemeral?
Some design needs are ephemeral. Most designs are ephemeral.

Ought it to tend towards the ephemeral or towards permanence?
Those needs and designs that have a more universal quality will tend towards permanence.

To whom does design address itself: To the greatest number (the masses)? To the specialists or the enlightened amateur? To a privileged social class?
To the need.

Can public action aid the advancement of design?
The proper public action can advance most anything.

After having answered all these questions, do you feel you have been able to practice the profession of “design” under satisfactory conditions, or even optimum conditions?
Yes.

Have you been forced to accept compromises?
I have never been forced to accept compromises but have willingly accepted constraints.

What do you feel is the primary condition for the practice of design and its propagation?
Recognition of the need.

What is the future of design?
(No answer)

Awyeah! Right there, at the end - it’s a dookie! Google made a crap for your Gmail.
Well, you know what they say, “a poop in your in-box is worth 4 flaming turds on your stoop”, or something like that.

Thanks Uncle Google, and thanks to you too, techyshit (for totally living up to the name too!)