Bruce Tognazzini has started up a discussion on the working title of Interaction Designers by suggesting that perhaps it should be changed to a more relevant title of Interaction Architect, which describes the title in more relevant terms, ie. a high-level approach to Human-Computer Interaction.

The topic which can be discussed further in the Discussion Group Tog has started, aims to find a consensus as to a single uniform name for the human-machine interaction profession, unite working professionals in the field and perhaps start a body that caters to this working group.

The discussion of working titles in the Computer Interaction and Information Architecture industries is not new, most recently discussions have occurred in the use of the word “Architecture”, some arguing that it can be a misuse of the word and should be limited to construction and building.
My initial views is that Interaction Architecture as a title is fine. It actually describes the role better than what Interaction Design does. I recently visited a party where possibly 80% of the party goers and close friends of mine were designers (Visual, Art, Print designers and Photographers), to some the titles, Information Designer, Interaction Designer and Information Architect were new to them and were curious of what each dealt with.

I explained my interpretation and description of each, with some questioning whether the use of the word “design” is appropriate :), others initially thought I was referring to a more visual sense of the word “design” and “interaction” such Flash MX or Director related. It was an interesting first person view on the working title of Interaction Designer (Interaction Architect) from a “designers” perspective.