System design refers to the design of the original framework for future design. This brings consistency and allows the user to get used to the same framework and to be able to start designing diffractions more quickly. Its existence is not a limitation, in my understanding it helps designers to innovate while following the established paradigm.
Design Systems and Interaction Design Stifling Creativity?
In a way it does stifle creativity, since the designer can’t just do whatever they want. However this is necessary. If designers could do whatever they wanted without thinking about the user, it wouldn’t make for a very good user experience. When designing for a client it is important to use their design system properly, since it’s a part of their brand. Designers design for others, not for themselves. Designers can be creative while also following the limitations of design systems and design patterns. They can use these guidelines to guide their creativity.
Transition from Web-design to User Experience Design
Web-design was focused on the aesthetic and visual pleasure of a design, without focusing as much on the user experience. Over time, the internet became more commonly used by everyday people. As designers started understanding user needs more, user experience became more of a focus. It is important for an interface to be intuitive and usable, and not just pretty to look at. The information should be organized well using information architecture, which helps users find the content that they’re looking for more easily. It is also important not to overwhelm the user with too much information.
Design Systems and interaction Patterns: Accelerators or obstacles to creativity?
Design systems and interaction design patterns usually do not kill creativity but can provide valuable guidance and foundation for interaction design. A design system comprises organized and standardized design guidelines, component libraries, patterns and principles, etc. It can improve the efficiency and consistency of design and ensure that the product maintains a unified style and user experience in different parts and scenarios.
Interaction design patterns are general solutions to common design problems that have been tested and optimized in practice. Designers can use the existing knowledge and experience in design systems and interaction design patterns to quickly build a basic framework for design, saving time and energy. At the same time, these patterns and systems are not rigid and unchanging. They provide a starting point for designers. Designers still need to innovate and personalize designs based on specific project requirements, target users, and situations.
Web Design to UX: Technology and Demand for two-wheel drive
On one hand, high-quality templates, ready-made design patterns, automation, and artificial intelligence have limited Web design growth. For example, many websites run on different frameworks or services, and many free or paid templates give users quick access to professional-looking designs. This lessens the necessity for specialized web designs. Moreover, Web design innovation has become more challenging due to the well-developed nature of existing user interface elements, which may make further changes seem unnecessary or harmful. Automated Web design tools, which use AI, can sometimes produce better designs than a regular Web designer.
On the other hand, user needs and experience have become more important. Web pages are no longer the main focus of internet experiences; they are now part of a bigger digital product and system. Designers must focus on user research and usability testing, considering the full experience of the product—how people interact with it, its usefulness, and if it creates an emotional connection. User experience (UX) design is user-centered and covers psychology, interaction design, and graphic design. It aims to enrich the overall experience, not just the Web page itself.
Who Should Drive Innovation: Government, Corporations, or Open Source?
As an interaction design student, I often wonder about where technology comes from and where it’s headed. Many of the technologies we rely on daily—like the internet and GPS—were initially funded by government and defense budgets. So, who should be responsible for inventing new technology in the future? Should it be governments, corporations, or open-source communities?
Long-Term Investment and Public Interest
Government funding often leads to foundational technologies that prioritize public interest over profit. Since governments don’t face the same profit pressures as corporations, they can afford to invest in high-risk, long-term research that might not show immediate results. This approach can be beneficial for society as a whole, creating infrastructure that everyone can use.
Speed and Scalability
On the other hand, corporations have the resources and competitive drive to scale technologies quickly and bring them to market. Companies like Google, Apple, and Tesla are continually pushing boundaries in AI, hardware, and clean energy. But their focus is often profit-driven, which can limit access to technology or prioritize revenue over user needs.
Community and Transparency
Finally, open-source projects encourage a community-driven approach where transparency and collaboration are key. Innovations from open-source communities, like Linux and Mozilla Firefox, allow anyone to contribute and benefit from the technology. Open-source projects tend to focus on accessibility and user-centered design, aligning well with the values we learn in interaction design.
A Balanced Approach
In reality, a mix of all three is ideal. Governments can provide the initial funding and long-term vision, corporations can drive large-scale adoption, and open-source communities can ensure transparency and access. Together, they can create a tech ecosystem that benefits everyone—an inspiring idea for any design student!
U.S. government’s responsibility
Technology like the internet, GPS or other functionality were initially funded by government projects. Today, however, we’re at a crossroads, with governments, corporations, and open source communities all playing unique roles in developing new technology.
Who should take responsibility for driving the next wave of innovation?
I think it is alway us. Government is responsible for cover the basic for everyone(that’s the reason we pay tax, government’s funds should spent on “guarantee everyone(who pay the tax) life easy and convenient”, not leading the innovation.
Technology and Responsibility
“Should governments, corporations or open source ventures be responsible for inventing new technology?” My first thought was that no one should bear sole responsibility over inventing new technologies. In the case of an individual entity driving the creation of new technologies, there is a concern of whether or not their motives are ethical and if their decisions are for the people. In the past, we have seen examples of a singular organization having too much authority (or are the only authority) over a project… and it typically results in harm to the public interest. Innovation and invention should be a collaborative effort, where one entity can monitor the other and play a supporting role. Governments, corporations, and open source can all contribute in their own way, but it is also up to the individuals in each of these organizations to advocate for humanity as technology continues to progress.
Internet & Government
By Micky Fang
New technology thrives when governments, corporations, and open-source communities collaborate. Government funding is crucial for high-risk, foundational research without immediate commercial value, as seen in the early internet. Corporations, with substantial resources, can scale and refine innovations, making them accessible. Open-source ventures, meanwhile, drive transparency, inclusivity, and community-driven progress, ensuring that technologies serve broader social interests. Ideally, governments fund foundational research, corporations develop it for the market, and open-source projects keep it open, transparent, and adaptable. By leveraging the strengths of all three sectors, we ensure that technological progress serves both society and economic growth.
Internet & Government
ho should invent new technology—governments, corporations, or open-source communities? Each has unique strengths, but also limitations.
Historically, governments have pioneered foundational technology. The internet and GPS, among other breakthroughs, were born from government funding, where long-term vision allows for high-risk projects without the pressure of immediate returns. However, governments are often slow-moving and bureaucratic, which can stifle innovation.
Corporations, by contrast, excel at taking technology mainstream. They can rapidly scale products, leveraging competition to improve quality and reach. However, their focus on profitability means innovation is often restricted to what drives revenue. Corporations can lock down technology with patents, creating monopolies and restricting broader access.
Open-source communities offer an entirely different approach. Built by passionate individuals, they emphasize collaboration, transparency, and accessibility. Open-source has given us Linux, Firefox, and many foundational internet tools. Yet, these projects often lack sustainable funding, making it challenging to support large-scale or long-term development.
In reality, no single sector should bear the full responsibility. Governments are ideal for funding high-risk, long-term projects; corporations for scaling and commercializing; and open-source communities for transparency and collaboration. Together, they create a balance that drives technology forward in ways that are both innovative and accessible.
In my opinion, corps and open source should rule – where the governement plays a helping hand in taking it to scale – (by enabling commoners)
DARPA & New Tech
I do believe governments, corporations, and open source ventures should be responsible for inventing new technology, but I also believe that limitations and restrictions to how these regulations are monitored should be set in place. A big concern I have especially with profit seeking corporations is how they might misuse these technologies for their own benefit without users knowing. The amount of information they hold with such limited oversight raises an ethical concern for me. On the government level, the use of public surveillance is also a topic I have mixed feelings about. Though I acknowledge surveillance is especially powerful in solving crime and recall events from the past, the 24/7 monitoring of everyday civilians feels dystopic. Though I also see a positive future in the various new uses of technology with the advancement of AI, medical technology, and self operating vehicles.
Government’s responsibility for inventing new technology
All three—governments, corporations, and open-source communities—have important roles to play in inventing new technology, and ideally, they should work together. Governments are well-suited for funding high-risk, foundational research (like the internet) because they can prioritize public benefit over profits. Corporations, on the other hand, excel at scaling and commercializing technology, making it accessible and useful in everyday life. Meanwhile, open-source communities bring transparency, innovation, and collaboration to tech development, often making it more inclusive and adaptable. By combining the strengths of each—government funding for risky projects, corporate resources for scaling, and open-source for collaboration and accountability—we can build technology that benefits everyone more sustainably.
Internet & Government
I believe all three: governments, corporations, and open source ventures should work together to invent new technology. Governments can provide funding and support for research that benefits society, like the internet. Corporations can bring new ideas to life quickly, using their resources and expertise to create products people need. Open-source ventures allow everyone to share and improve technology, making it more accessible and transparent. I feel each group has strengths, and by working together, they can create better technology for everyone.
Yes, they should
I believe that governments, corporations or open source ventures community should all play an important role in technological innovation. It is true that the investment of the U.S. government, corporations or open source ventures has laid a solid foundation for the development of infrastructure such as the Internet. However, there are limitations to leaving technological innovation entirely in the hands of a single entity, be it the government, corporations, or the open source community.
I prefer a pluralistic model of innovation:
A.Government: The government should continue to support basic research and cutting-edge technology exploration, and provide the necessary financial and policy guarantees for innovation. At the same time, the government should also focus on transforming research results into practical applications to promote social progress.
B.Enterprises: Enterprises, as the main players in marketization, are more capable of capturing market demand and transforming technological innovation into products and services. Enterprises should increase investment in technology research and development, while focusing on the combination of technology and business model.
C.Open source communities: Open source communities are an important force for innovation, promoting rapid technology iteration and popularization through open collaboration. Open source communities should receive more support and encouragement.
In addition to the three types of subjects mentioned above, individuals, entrepreneurs and designers should also have the right to invent and create. They often have unique perspectives and creativity that can produce breakthrough innovations in niche fields. This diversified innovation model can ensure the full utilization of existing resources, prevent large organizations from monopolizing technology, and promote the universality and development of technology.
Internet & Government
The responsibility for inventing new technology ideally rests on a combination of governments, corporations, and open-source ventures, as each brings unique strengths to the table. Governments can fund risky, long-term research with broad societal impact, such as the early development of the internet, often focusing on projects that may not be immediately profitable but hold significant potential for public good. Corporations, on the other hand, drive innovation by investing in research and development to create products with market demand, often bringing technology to market quickly and on a large scale due to their resources and incentive to commercialise inventions. Meanwhile, open-source ventures foster collaboration and transparency, making technology accessible and community-driven, often focusing on niche needs or enhancing existing technologies outside of commercial interests. Together, these entities create a balanced ecosystem for innovation, where foundational research, market-driven products, and accessible tools can all flourish.
Why Government Should Have Responsibility In New Technology
According to the history, government plays a really important role in inventing internet, it provide fundings and policies to support the development of internet. Thus, the responsibility for inventing new technologies could be ideally expected fund by government. Government can often be giving the early funding for high-risked project or fundamental technologies.
I think governments, corporations or open source ventures should do whatever they can to support new technologies’ inventing or funding. Because a country want to stand longer and more matured, new and creative technologies are relatively important. It provide fresh bloods and triggering other countries’ talented people to come and stay in America. Governments, corporations or open source ventures owns power as well as the authority that people often provide trust. Then, with governments, corporations or open source ventures leadings, a new technologies can go through the hardest period of time and become a well-developed technology that merits everyone in the world.
The Internet, Government, Enterprises, and Open Source Communities
The government has a unique advantage in funding basic research and projects that bear higher risks, because its driving force is usually not direct profit, but long-term social benefits. The early R&D cycle of technology is long, the capital demand is large, and the risk of success is high. It may not be able to bear or persist relying solely on corporate and market forces. Therefore, government funding is very critical in laying the foundation for technology.
Enterprises usually have a strong momentum to bring technology to market, and are good at productization, meeting consumer needs, and rapidly expanding applications.
Open source projects and communities can promote innovation in a decentralized way, providing transparency, openness and cooperation for technological development. Through the contributions of many developers, the open source community can make rapid progress in refining problems, fixing vulnerabilities, and expanding applications.
The government, enterprises and open source communities each have their own advantages in promoting technological innovation. The government is suitable for funding high-risk, long-term basic research to lay the foundation for technology; enterprises are good at marketization and user demand-driven, and can quickly transform technology into usable products; open source communities promote openness and cooperation, and promote transparent and flexible innovation. The ideal model is a collaborative collaboration among the three.
shuoning Liang
Internet & Government
I think, first of all, the government, companies, and open-source enterprises should be viewed separately.
Firstly, there is the government, which is essentially a management and violent institution. As a management organization, it should focus its main energy on how to further innovate its own country’s companies, while as a violent organization, it also must develop new defense and attack technologies with the core of safeguarding national security. But as for interaction design and cutting-edge technology, the government should not take responsibility for this part but should guide the open-source community and enterprises to develop new technologies.
As a company, I believe they have a responsibility to develop new technologies. When there are competitors in the industry, they also invest more funds in research and development for the sake of competition. The simplest example is the competition between Intel, Nvidia, and AMD, where they spontaneously develop new technologies in constant competition. Recently, Intel has even taken a gamble to develop low-voltage and standard-voltage CPUs due to the further development of AMD’s personal chips.
As an open-source community, they are born with new technologies themselves. For example, on Github, countless programmers publish their works, and this is a positive cycle where people constantly inherit the experience of their predecessors and explore new technologies.
About GUI
The biggest change since the early days of Macintosh/Windows is that information has gradually been hidden, and people have named this kind of hiding hierarchy. People have created the desktop, throwing all personalized settings into the “settings” and throwing the operations of the advance into the corners of the GUI. People usually need to engage in more in-depth interactions to access the panels that control them. GUI has become more human-friendly, allowing people to interact with the virtual world more and more intuitively. Where there is a table, there are drawers. People throw a large number of applications into the drawers and store them only on the desktop for daily use. At the same time, early operations mostly relied on mice and keyboards, such as clicking, dragging, etc. But now, not only are computers in the same category, but the birth of mobile phones has also led people to incorporate touch into a new primary way of interaction. Gesture operations, voice control, and other methods have increased users’ interactive choices.
What remains unchanged is the role of icons, which are still the core functions of visual prompts and quick navigation in the app.
Now, people are hoping for cross-platform collaboration and interaction capabilities, more diverse accessibility designs, and the expansion of interaction once again.
Nowadays, we generally refer to smartphones, computers, and tablets of the same brand as having an “ecosystem”. This means that they can usually work together, such as the photo album function. People with an ecosystem usually have synchronized photo albums on their phones, computers, and tablets. And now I believe that it is possible to further synchronize the functions, allowing devices to only have differences in interaction and display form.
Companies such as Apple, Samsung, and Huawei are now focusing on AI, hoping to incorporate more AI into people’s daily interactions. A simple example is a schedule. For example, if someone sends you a message saying, “I bought a plane ticket for tomorrow morning,” people can have their phones automatically recognize the text on the screen in the future. Then, the phone can use AI for semantic recognition and automatically set a schedule reminder for the next morning. Decreasing GUI interaction will be the next direction we hope to strive for.
Response of Internet & Government
– KY
Indeed, many key technologies were initially developed with strong government support, often for military purposes (such as the microwave oven invented during World War II). Historically, both governments and businesses have funded projects with clear or strategic purposes. For example, many useful inventions, from GPS to early computers, were originally created to meet government or defense needs. However, once these technologies enter the public eye, their uses will be infinitely magnified, rather than military purposes.
In my opinion, the responsibility for developing new technologies does not fall on a single type of organization, but should be shared. Each organization has unique advantages: governments can fund large, high-risk projects that serve the public interest, businesses often promote practical innovation to meet consumer needs, and open source communities promote collaboration and transparency.
But what’s interesting is that often innovative technologies and capabilities will lead to a tilt in resources to achieve advantages in business wars/strategies/decision-making/discourse. Not only from the perspective of whether to take responsibility for development, no one wants to be left behind, whether it is a company or a national government.