Interaction Design is slowly gaining recognition in industry, finding a strategic home between marketing and engineering. Interaction Designers are placed in teams at high-tech companies like Google and Yahoo, and also have become established as contributors in small consultancies like IDEO or Ziba. Yet while Interaction Design continues to creep into enterprises big and small, many Interaction Designers remain pessimistic regarding their ability to effect positive change in the development of products. Interaction Designers continually discuss career problems relating to organizational respect, use (or lack thereof) of methodology, ambiguity of job description, and project ownership. These problems may be due to the relative “newness” of Interaction Design as a profession. As the profession has grown and proven itself, project teams have begun to trust Interaction Designers with more responsibility. At the same time, however, the difficulty in identifying the outcome of Interaction Design efforts makes this a difficult profession to explain. Development teams realize they need Interaction Design, but they aren't necessarily sure why. Additionally, the ambiguity of the end creation makes it difficult for Interaction Designers to find a home in the traditional structure of many corporations or consultancies. A designer is neither an engineer, programmer, or scientist, nor a writer, artist, or stylist. Of course, paradoxically, a good Interaction Designer is a bit of all of these things. In order to claim the respect necessary to rise to a decision-making position, the community of Interaction Designers needs to better educate the business world about what Interaction Design is, what it does, and why it is important. This education requires a great deal of passion and patience, and some sort of central organizational body and framework.