dearly devoted

“creative technology” was born: partly to assuage the accumulating angst of downtrodden developers; partly to enable those developers willing to step up to the creative plate also to step outside the conventional development toolkit; and partly – perhaps most importantly – to spread awareness across the board that where interactive work is concerned, creating involves making; making interactive stuff involves technology; and people can be creative in a range of disciplines, not only blue-sky ideation.”

“Their work wasn’t purely science or technology; though grounded in both, it was far from the simple application of formulae or solving of equations. Developers knew that you couldn’t take a creative brief as a set of instructions and just “translate” it into software. You have to interpret it, and that takes an extra spark. A creative spark. They saw this was a fundamental part of the overall interactive creative process, and yet a parallel, creative process of its own. The naming perpetuated the misunderstanding, and so it had to change.”