Bruce Tognazzini has some interesting comments on the naming of our field. I've always thought "Interaction Designer" fit pretty well, at least better than "New Media Designer," "Experience Architect," or "Interface Alchemist." Tog settles on "Interaction Architect," which works fairly well, but I think using the term "Architect" can lead to some confusion (does an interaction need a foyer?). It also co-opts the name of another profession, the same reason he says we should not use the term "engineer." Either way, it seems like a good discussion to be having.

Molly Steenson has an interesting response to Tog's question. Essentially she says that it's the wrong question, we should focus on what the profession is rather than what it is called.   08/06/03