I think HCI -- even though it's a relatively new program in most schools -- is a response to a problem a decade late. For reasons good and bad, Academia can't k

I think HCI -- even though it's a relatively new program in most schools -- is a response to a problem a decade late. For reasons good and bad, Academia can't keep up with Moore's Law. First, you don't want to build a major for every new technology; the half life of most technologies is very short. Second, sifting the cruft from the stuff that will outlive the specific technology (think personal updates vs. friendster -> myspace -> facebook -> twitter) is difficult. So you end up with a compromise: A school of thought that teaches (or tries to) timeless principles of interaction. This is an incredible advancement in education, but unfortunately means less to someone looking for employment right out of college. The problem is that UI and UX are a mix of science -- something taught at universities and colleges -- and what is traditionally relegated to vocational schools. It's not an applied science; it's more like being a mechanic or someone who makes those really fancy import cars even fancier. The solution, I think, is going to be a long way off; universities will have to hire people that teach more about the history of design, what people are accustomed to and expect, what interfaces work and why and how to design for people whose aesthetic changes once every couple years. Art schools will have to hire hardcore CS people to teach rock solid foundations of logic, how languages work, etc etc...