I was going through some readings a couple of days ago in trying to understand visual culture. One thing that I have come to think of is whether the Bauhaus (and later by Modernists) notion of the “Form Follows Function” and that “Ornament is a crime” would apply to Interaction Design. When we are looking for a language for Interaction Design, are we only looking at the processes or also the final outcome of the process (the interactive application/art).

Would this also mean that having a more rationalistic approach to the designs would suffice better as compared to having to make an artifact that would look (read immediate attention) aesthetically pleasing. As Interaction design is a lot about the process and as discussed in classes, the moment a process comes into the frame, its a rationalistic approach.

I feel that Neilsen bases his heuristics and also the argument to his site with this notion in mind.
Often at times I think if we are applying the same well to the current situation of Web 2.0 standards when dealing with interaction/interface design.

With interfaces becoming simpler and less cluttered and very well defined for the task it is supposed to be doing, are we again going back to this classic theory?