I would certainly not label myself an interaction designer. Or an information architect. Or an interface designer. But after reading the articles assigned this week, I feel a greater sense of shared purpose with those "professions."
I had always considered that - as a graphic designer (which is how I have typically referred to myself) - I am generally in the same field as these other designers, but their work seemed very foreign to me. Listening to Jesse James Garrett deliver the 2009 IA Summit Closing Plenary helped me to realize that - although we may use different media in most cases - our purposes are the same. Garrett told the audience (fellow information architects) "There are no information architects. There are no interaction designers. There are only, and only ever have been, user experience designers." I particularly liked this statement because it re-opened my eyes. I say re-opened because, of course I knew that the success or failure of my work was dependent on whether it generated the desired response from the audience. But how easy it is to forget (especially when working as the sole designer in a workplace) that the choices in each work should have nothing to do with ME. An interaction designer's work in creating software interface, while it may make use of more scientific testing and studies, is really no different than my work when creating a poster or a brochure in that both have a specific purpose to achieve. Garrett realized this overarching purpose across media when he said "there are lots of materials - media - we can use to shape experiences. Saying user experience design is about digital media is rather like saying that sculpture is about the properties of clay."
I also enjoyed hearing the perspective of Garrett's business partner, Peter Merholz (as much for how he handled the passive-aggressive digs of GK VanPatter as for what he actually had to say about design!). In their interview titled Ladder of Fire: Unpacking Advocacies, Merholz spends significant time discussing experience design. What I liked most about Merholz was his insistence on the importance of other disciplines and other experiences to create effective "designs."
Although Merholz had many great things to say, his one statement that immediately jumped out at me was that "I don't define myself by my degree, though, because it really was just proof that I survived four years of college." This is something that I would like to reemphasize to all those designers just finishing college. The name of your degree can be such a limiting, restrictive force in your career if you allow it to be. Having a degree in graphic design does not mean that you should feel pressured to find a job with that same title. I worked a variety of jobs that - in appearance - had nothing to do with graphic design. Yet they helped build MY unique set of skills and perspectives. I have never held a job where I couldn't find something useful to take away. Moreover, I always found some little way that I could incorporate my design skills (essentially problem-solving skills) in every job. The pressure to find employment after graduation can be intense, just know that accepting a job in another field can really add to your arsenal if you use it for that.
If you can survive Graphic Design, you can survive it all!
ReplyDeleteThat thought kept ringing through my mind as I read your post, and I love the point about not being limited by your degree. I think that having graphic design as your core, makes it easier to engage in the other disciplines because it emphasizes both visual and process.
Or maybe I'm just biased because I'm a graphic designer?
:)
Excellent insights, Lindsey. Your degree is merely a foundation on which to build your career.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Kofi, you are absolutely correct! Graphic Design is a solid foundation for working in most design disciplines.