Estimated reading time: 0 minutes, 39 seconds

Yeah, I agree with that. I love all of the people/ideas on the list – my point is that there are many people out there that have stepped over the line from “can be adapted” to “are adapting it.” So not really balancing design concepts and theory, but balancing doing the ideas (and not just tech tools and tool usage) with concepts/theories. Ideas are important – we need people to look at race, influence, and so on. I would agree that everyone up there counts as an innovator. But lists like the Chronicle one get a lot of attention, influencing everything from hiring decisions to keynote speakers to allocation of funds. So if participating in them, we really should look beyond what was important for us as individuals and to what is needed for the field. At least, that is my take on them. And the field in general is too heavily weighted towards ideas, research, tech tools, hype, etc. I don’t want to weight it back in the other direction – just bring balance to the force (and not in an Anakin Skywalker kind of way).

I would also add more than 10 if I came up with them – just because the Chronicle stops at 10 doesn’t mean we have to 🙂