Glen raised an interesting issue with some parallels in information design
> The role of 3D software is of nowadays of such crucial importance that it
> cannot be stated highly enough.

The potential negative consequences of going straight to the computer are
there in 2D design as well. Sketching, a vital part of design thinking in
2D, is also disappearing, and there is some significant loss (I think). Has
anyone done work on this? If not, I think it could be worth exploring.

On a positive note, we began incorporating computers into prototyping and
testing routines virtually within days of the first Mac and laser printer
arriving on our desks, back in the mid eighties. Up till then our normal
turn around time from preparation of artwork to testing with users was about
10 days. With DTP, we could accomplish the same turnaround in a matter of
hours. The effect that had on our work was quite dramatic. It meant that we
could test documents many times over, very cheaply and quickly. The quality
of the final documents was much higher than we could have achieved
previously in a shorter time, and at much less cost.

We have reported these changes in a number of research papers and case
histories.

I think it could be useful to have some more wide ranging research on the
effects these technologies have had on our design methods and how these
might be incorporated productively into design teaching.

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

> From: [log in to unmask]
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:38:03 -0400
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Concrete Issues Affecting Design
>
> 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:
>

> 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