Glen, Rosan and all
First, my usual caveat. I'm able to contribute on an intermittent basis
only. I'm currently on a train heading from London to Reading and I don't
know when I will be able to hook into the internet next, send this, or have
time to respond.
To begin with Glen's question.
> We are asking - are there any PROVEN ways in which we can improve our
> ability to design?
Glen, I think this question is spot on. The litmus test for any research
conference is whether someone reports new findings or new ways of thinking
that I did not know about before. In particular, in the design field, I look
for new or improved ways of doing design that have been validated in some
way. Or new ways of thinking about design and design problem solving.
I cannot answer your specific question about industrial design, because I am
not an industrial designer. My own field is information design--these days
going under much fancier titles such as information architecture,
interaction design, or even experience design. (We live in desperate times!)
As a researcher in information design, I would be deeply embarrassed if I
could not answers such a question, if it was asked of me by a practicing
information designer. Yes, in our field of information design there are
PROVEN ways in which we can improve our ability to design, and we have,
along with others, done research which provides that proof. And we continue
to do such research. Sadly though, I can report that in the sessions I
attended, I did not learn anything that struck me as new, either by way of
findings, ideas or methods.
Obviously, in a conference of this size, with so many parallel sessions,
it's impossible for anyone to attend every session. And I have not yet read
the full proceedings. Some people did tell me that they learnt some new
things in other sessions. Others reported a similar experience to my own. I
hope we hear from them all on this list.
Rosan, asked:
>What is our common ground? Was a common ground laid or refabricated at the
>conference? And how was the idea of 'common' being outlined at the conference?
I notice since you asked this question, we all got diverted by the claim
that 'Common Ground' was not really the theme, and further diverted into a
side issue about 'blind refereeing' (I think, as an aside, that we would be
better calling it 'invisible refereeing', but then it depends on who is
looking at what, and who knows who is looking at what. It always fascinates
me the lengths we go to to hide who is doing what to whom. But then, what is
done, is done, and we know not by whom.)
Moving to your question. It's worth pointing out that there are at least two
major meanings to the word common: something shared, and something ordinary.
In reflections on the conference I hover between the two.
In the sense of something shared--a zeitgeist--I think Trond Are Oritsland
captured part of that when he referred to:
> - A philosophical interest in phenomenology and "the embodied mind" .
> - Shared interest in design teaching in terms of understanding the process of
design.
> - A movement from the object, to interaction as the basis of designs
"artifact"
From my limited exposure to the papers presented, this was the impression I
derived.
I would perhaps add to this, as others have already:
- A preoccupation with the social value of design
- An interest in the design of social systems, such as services.
But I hasten to repeat that this was my impression of the zeitgeist of the
conference, and none of these ideas are new in design practice or research.
I often feel that conferences are a special side channel in the river of
life. We enter the channel, and for a few precious days we move at a slower
pace in deeper waters, mingle in a slow dance with others, and at the end we
are dumped back into the main channel, cascading over the wear, tumbling
back into life and the main stream.
I think the conference organisers provided us with an excellent opportunity
to partake in that slow dance. Many thanks to them for that opportunity. I'm
sure that many of us, myself included, look forward to the next side channel
along the river.
Did we make any great advance? lay a common ground? or even prepare the
foundations for a common ground? Alas, I think not. But the fact that we
want to continue dancing together is sometimes enough.
David
--
Professor David Sless
BA MSc FRSA
Co-Chair Information Design Association
Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
Director
Communication Research Institute of Australia
** helping people communicate with people **
PO Box 398 Hawker
ACT 2614 Australia
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
phone: +61 (0)2 6259 8671
fax: +61 (0)2 6259 8672
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|