I would define “interaction design” very broadly as the way users interact with anything that has been planned directly to serve a purpose or illicit a response. This can be a concept, an app, a technical product, the layout of a room, etc. So long as it was devised primarily to be experiences by others.
However, when pulled back broadly it can be difficult to distinguish how a level of intention determines what is “interaction design.” Furniture design considers how a user will sit or what materials will best support the human form. That is a designed interaction with a material. But is the arrangement of the furniture necessarily an interaction design? What if the furniture is haphazardly arranged without thought? What if the furniture is carefully arranged but the end result is a room less functional than the hypothetical where everything was thrown together?
My diagram represents a kind of interaction.
- Users have a “problem”
- (Someone) sees the problem and attempts a solution, for the sake of easy diagramming I made the solution a physical thing.
- Users interact with the product — as a way to demonstrate a simple back and forth between problem/solution I used instructions.
- The problem is reevaluated and the solution is refined
Theoretically there are several interactions taking place. The literal interaction where users are interacting with the product by pressing the button is one. The method in which the person(s) with the solution ask for feedback about the product is an interaction. Potentially the way users articulate the problem is an interaction.
Theoretically the diagram could continue indefinitely. What I have in mind is that rarely is there a “solution” to any given problem. The problems people attempt to solve about their lives are rarely like a machine that needs repair. I am suggesting to convey a back and forth interaction where the problem is readdressed vis a vis the proposed solution.
