Re: Interactive Design in the Grown in California competition

On Jul 14, 2004, at 4:38 PM, Julie Stanford wrote:
> I recently received an announcement in the mail inviting me to 
> participate
> in the California AIGA "Grown in California" Design Competition.
[snip]
> not sure what "designed experiences executed in real/time space" means?

I'm not sure, either. I think it was an attempt to be all-inclusive but 
to not say "Computer stuff. Any RGB that's not motion picture/tv work."

> Does
> this mean that I can send them a video of me designing a user 
> interface in
> real time?

I suspect not.

> Also, I find it curious that this competition allows for "software
> interfaces for mobile devices and networked appliances" but seems to
> specifically exclude desktop applications.

I also suspect that you could sneak in other stuff. It would seem that 
remembering that this is a graphic design competition might make sense: 
Whether they admit it or not, novelty, arousal of curiosity, and 
aesthetic impact are likely to be big judging factors and the nature of 
mass competitions is that work tends to get judged superficially (at 
least on the initial elimination rounds.)

> Finally, I find it interesting that this competition, along with most 
> other
> design competitions, groups all interactive design under one category.
> Although I think it is very difficult to compare a cool web animation 
> with a
> software interface for a mobile device, someone is going to have say 
> which
> is the "better" experience for two EXTREMELY different things. In 
> contrast,
> there are many, many categories for graph design, non-interactive
> communication: branding and identity, corporate communication, 
> editorial
> design, illustration, pacakgin, promotional design and advertising, and
> typeface design.

There was a recent thread on Speak Up where web designers were talking 
about how the AIGA is mainly for print design. They, of course, saw a 
string of events--one about branding, one on magazine design, another 
about web design, one on annual reports, and something on printing 
techniques and paper as being 80% print design and the web part as 
woefully inadequate. The notion that a corporate identity designer saw 
it as 80% "other stuff" and even then not really targeted to what she 
does wouldn't cross their minds.

The AIGA at all levels has a chicken and egg problem when it comes to 
involving designers and modes of work beyond a fairly narrow range. 
Yeah, they don't "get it." They lump a lot of disparate stuff together 
and aren't interested in the most interesting stuff. That's partly 
because of the makeup of the group. It's partly because, like most 
people, they do what they've done. It's partly because they don't know 
enough to know what -is- interesting, who can present it well, and 
especially who can connect it to other areas of practice (since the 
audience is often unprepared to understand the connections.

If I had been putting together this competition I have no idea how I 
would have categorized things if at all. The only reasons I can think 
of to categorize is to make sure that people are entering a range of 
work and, if needed, judges with specific expertise are available. In 
very large competitions specialist judges mean that no one judge have 
to look at ten thousand entries including eighteen hours of broadcast 
entries. I suppose in some rare cases the category is a signal as to 
how a judge should look at an object.

I didn't notice any indication that there were category quotas. If they 
get a hundred great branding programs and no worthwhile film titles I 
suspect they'll just accept the good stuff. The design of a political 
newspaper and of a porno magazine both fall in the publication design 
category. A war monument and a teenage clothing store both are 
environmental design. Most of the categories require a judge to compare 
the design to some ideal rather than primarily to other entries.

What different categories would have been helpful (keeping in mind that 
they aren't likely to be interested in determining who did the best job 
of designing any specific thing but are interested in attracting and 
rewarding design excellence in general)?

Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura California 93001-3625 USA

+1 805 667-2200
[email protected]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/ru9rlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

- - - - A I G A  E X P I E R I E N C E  D E S I G N - - - -

PURPOSE OF THE LIST:  The objective of AIGA Experience Design is to build an interdisciplinary community of professionals who design for a world in which experiences are increasingly digital and connected. This list has been established as a forum for the exchange of information among community members.

TO VIEW ARCHIVED MESSAGES: visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AIGAExperienceDesign

ETIQUETTE: We ask that participants observe common principles of civility and e-mail etiquette in their postings. Specifically, it is more appropriate to challenge ideas than individuals, and the list should *not* be used for personal communications, self-promotion, commercial solicitations or job postings.

JOB POSTINGS: Please post job listings on AIGA Design Jobs http://www.aiga.org/designjobs

TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send e-mail to [email protected]

MORE INFORMATION: http://experiencedesign.aiga.org
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AIGAExperienceDesign/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/