In response to David's earlier post and to try and turn the discourse
towards the practice of design and away from abstraction:
Design issues that might provide grounds for further study, that we have
come across in industrial design (ID) practice. If any Ph.D student out
there is looking for a concrete way in which they can help the design
community. (strictly speaking of ID here, but there are parallels to
architecture and interior design)
3D Software:
The role of 3D software is of nowadays of such crucial importance that it
cannot be stated highly enough.
http://www.cadserver.co.uk/common/viewer/archive/2002/Feb/5/feature13.phtm
Designers - here and at many design studios I have visited or worked with,
have little in the way of drawing apparatus nowadays. Even 3D sketch models
are becoming rarer. It is often taken that a machined form or SLA
(stereolithograph) part will suffice.
There are several major problems this brings to design (from our
standpoint), I could showcase several projects here, to back this up if
there is any interest:
1. Some designers do not even need to sketch before hitting the CAD tube -
there is effectively no pre-development. This must have tremendous
implications to the field of Design Research. There is little abstraction -
or space for 'blocking' of thought and return with secondary conceptual
thought. If there is any development it is in that the design will be
discarded or mutated at a later point. We are selecting from finished
designs, the design process has been fundamentally changed. Looking at the
files on our own projects illustrates how we can immediately create on CAD,
I won't post graphics here but can provide examples if requested.
2. If there is no (or little) development, then that indicates less 'cycle
time' has gone into current designs, than in the past. There is also very
little time in which to co-brainstorm designs with design colleagues. The
process is(has) become very singular in nature (even when shared with
concurrent software). Brainstorms are, for us (and from discussions with
others) , becoming rarer.
3.There are several very established CAD packages used throughout the
design industry , moving between one, two, three and possibly four alters
the 'accent' of the person's work. Work in Alias, Maya and Rhino is almost
identifiable in nature when placed against work of more traditional CAD
packages. Software is therefore affecting the style that society will
purchase. In effect, your mobile phone reflects the software used to create
it. It could be argued that the higher tech products could not even exist
if it were not for the software.
4. Fluency in more than two of these packages - begins to strain the actual
ability to work. Shortcuts and more skilful techniques are lost if one
assimilates yet another package. This is best illustrated with hourly
design analysis - we have evidence that a 3,500 hour program can require
5,500 when moving to newer CAD platforms - which then might reduce to 3,000
whilst in expert mode.
5. Creative Issue - The greater the knowledge of the software - the less
risks and creative moments are taken or 'seized'. Switching off the
terminal often produces the most imaginative design work. I refer here to
discussions with other design lecturers in the past.
This seat was produced almost entirely on CAD. We question how we would
have created the tolerances if this was carried out by hand - and yet
Concorde was entirely hand driven in its creation!
http://www.jal.co.jp/e/inflight/inter/executive/shellflat/
Back to David's point on abstraction, Hoare's view might deserve better
attention. http://dsv.su.se/%7Ejpalme/s1/hoare.pdf
Glenn Johnson
MDesRCA FRSA IDSA
|