Talk:Interaction Design Foundation

General Proposal

Hi everyone,

I’d like to suggest a few updates that may improve the accuracy and consistency of this article.

I have a conflict of interest, as I am affiliated with the Interaction Design Foundation, so I will not edit the article directly and instead propose these observations here for independent review.

I’ve noted a few areas that may benefit from updates:

1. Outdated or inconsistent references

There are several references that appear to no longer resolve or may be outdated. For example:

Reference 10 (“Review: An Interaction Design Encyclopedia opens its Pages”) - this link no longer resolves References 13 - 15 (Share the Knowledge Tour) - these pages appear to be inactive or no longer available

Where helpful, I’ve identified potential replacement sources for consideration: Share the Knowledge Tour coverage:

https://news.vcu.edu/article/vcu_information_systems_hosts_stop_on_worldwide_bike_tour

Encyclopedia entries:

https://ixdf.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/disruptive-innovation https://ixdf.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/bifocal-display

2. Branding and link consistency

There are instances where older naming conventions or domains are still referenced (e.g., “Interaction Design.org”). It may be worth reviewing these for consistency with the current naming conventions IxDF.org.

3. Potentially outdated figures

The article refers to “local chapters in more than 150 countries.” This figure may no longer be current and could benefit from verification using a reliable secondary source.

4. Tone and clarity

Some phrasing may be interpreted as promotional, for example:

“world-class educational materials”  

It may be worth revising this to more neutral wording or attributing it directly to the organization.

Additionally, there are a few areas where content may be repeated (e.g., descriptions of courses, textbooks, and local chapters), which could potentially be streamlined for clarity.

I’m happy to provide more specific examples if helpful.

As recommended in the Wikipedia conflict-of-interest guidelines, I’m sharing these suggestions here on the Talk page first for review and will wait for feedback before making any direct edits.

Thank you for your time and for maintaining the quality of this article. ~2026-23168-80 (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested addition to History section

Hi everyone,

I would like to propose adding the History section in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

I have a conflict of interest, as I am affiliated with the Interaction Design Foundation, so I will not edit the article directly and instead propose these observations here for independent review. We have recently relaunched our website and would want these changes to reflect accurately.

Thank you for reviewing.

Proposed text:

History

Interaction Design Foundation (IxDF) was founded in 2002 by Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam. The organization provides online educational resources focused on interaction design, user experience (UX), and human–computer interaction (HCI).

During the 2000s, IxDF developed online learning materials and courses related to UX and interface design. The organization collaborated with academics and industry practitioners to produce educational content in the field of human–computer interaction.

IxDF later expanded its offerings to include online courses, a digital resource library, and the Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, an open-access collection of educational articles and reference materials related to design and usability. "The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction". The Online Books Page, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved 6 May 2026.

Sources: https://blog.logrocket.com/ux-design/interaction-design-foundation/ https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp77567 Veronikastrelbytska (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

General Proposal

Hi everyone,

I would like to propose updating the Products and Services section in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines.

I have a conflict of interest, as I am affiliated with the Interaction Design Foundation, so I will not edit the article directly and instead propose these observations here for independent review. We have recently relaunched our website and would want these changes to reflect accurately.

Proposed text:

== Products and Services ==

The platform includes several components, such as a course library, Masterclasses, and supplementary learning resources. The courses are self-paced, online, and combine video lectures, text-based lessons, and assessments. In addition to courses, the organization provides live and recorded Master Classes, community forums, local networking groups, and online learning resources.

Source: https://www.toools.design/blog-posts/ixdf-interaction-design-foundation-review.

IxDF courses range from introductory to advanced, with educational materials that include contributions from academics and industry practitioners, including faculty from institutions such as MIT, Stanford, and Cambridge

Masterclasses have featured speakers including Don Norman, co-founder of the Nielsen Norman Group, and Professor Alan Dix, a leading figure in human-computer interaction.  

Thank you for reviewing. Alicea317 (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Request for Review of Large-Scale Content Removal

I am posting this in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidance.

On 26 May 2026, a substantial amount of content was removed from the Interaction Design Foundation article with the edit summary "Unsourced, promotional, poorly sourced."

While we understand and respect Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality requirements, the removal affected a significant amount of long-standing historical and descriptive content that had been part of the article for many years.

We would appreciate independent editor input on whether some of the removed material could be restored, rewritten, or improved using stronger sourcing rather than being removed entirely.

Our concern is not that negative information remains in the article. Rather, the current version provides a very limited description of the organization and omits substantial information about its history, publications, educational resources, and activities.

We would welcome feedback on:

- Which specific removed statements fail Wikipedia's sourcing requirements.

- Whether alternative independent sources would support those statements.

- Which portions, if any, could be reintroduced in a more neutral form.

For transparency, the organization's official description can be found on its About page, although we understand that Wikipedia generally prefers independent sources when evaluating article content.

We are committed to complying with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and conflict of interest editing. OperationalSpecialist (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for Independent Editor Input

I would appreciate input from any uninvolved editors who may be watching this article.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidance and have attempted to follow the recommended editing process.

Rather than making direct changes, I first proposed edits in the section above for independent review. After allowing time for discussion, I also opened a discussion on User talk Viking in an effort to better understand the concerns raised and to seek guidance on which historical topics or sections might be appropriate if rewritten with stronger independent secondary sources.

While I received an initial response, my follow-up questions have not received a reply, and the discussion appears to have reached an impasse.

My concern is not simply that proposed edits were reverted. Rather, a single edit removed a substantial amount of longstanding historical and descriptive content, including material that had existed in the article for many years before the recent proposed updates.

I fully understand that longstanding content is not exempt from Wikipedia's policies and that every statement included in an article must comply with Wikipedia's requirements for neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing.

However, I would appreciate an independent review of whether the current version of the article gives appropriate weight to the subject and whether some of the removed historical or descriptive material could appropriately be retained if supported by stronger independent secondary sources and presented in a more neutral manner.

In particular, I would welcome guidance on:

- Whether the removal of this longstanding content is consistent with Wikipedia's content policies and due weight principles.

- Which categories of historical or descriptive information would generally be appropriate for inclusion if supported by reliable independent secondary sources.

- Whether the current version of the article provides a sufficiently balanced and informative overview of the organization.

- Whether future edit requests would be more appropriately focused on restoring specific historical topics individually, rather than broader revisions.

My intention is not to restore previous wording or challenge another editor personally. I am seeking guidance on how the article can best comply with Wikipedia's policies while remaining balanced, informative, and properly sourced.

If no additional input is received after allowing a reasonable time for discussion, I intend to seek further guidance through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. However, I would very much welcome any comments or suggestions here first.

Thank you to anyone willing to review the discussion and provide guidance. I am new to Wikipedia and it is a huge learning curve. Ultimately, I want the IxDF page to reflect the company fairly and adhere to Wikipedia policies.

Many thanks in advance!

OperationalSpecialist (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Update: paid-editing disclosure

For transparency, I've posted a formal paid-contribution disclosure on my user page, covering my role and that of colleagues who have participated in this discussion. Going forward I'll be the sole point of contact for IxDF-related proposals here. OperationalSpecialist (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)