Note: This is a long post in response to a long post in response. . .
Some of you may have concluded that you don't care in the least what
Ken or I or both or either of us think about Gerry McGovern. I do
think there are wider issues involved here and I have marked a later
bit of this post with ************************************ so that
those who wish to read non-McGovern-related comments only can skip to
that part. (This is not specifically meant to discourage the reading
of the entire post, BTW.) Who knows? You may find that part to be
even less interesting than the McGovern stuff. it is about me and my
feelings and beliefs as a teacher and practitioner about research and
researchers.
--------------------------------
Ken,
>Dear Gunnar,
>
>You will find Gerry McGovern's views on specific issues in his books
>and articles.
>
>McGovern's articles are collected on his Web site, already noted.
>
>http://www.gerrymcgovern.com/
Wow. Weren't you the guy arguing for page numbers in references? I've
read a bit of his stuff but if I want a real explanation of HIS use
of the phrase "graphic design principles" I need to read his whole
goddamned site AND his new book?
Since you have read more of his writing than I have, would YOU care
to tell me what he might have meant by "graphic design principles"?
>What I was asking is that you state the issues that bother you rather
>than complaining about attacks on the profession of graphic design.
Are you saying that discussion of the effect of "research" rhetoric
on the practice of design is invalid in general or is it just
inappropriate for this list? (Your clarification later in your post
didn't do much to clear that up for me.)
>On this, my friend, I say don't be silly.
You know me better than that. Of course I will be.
>In asking what you find
>disagreeable about McGovern's views aside from a narrow attack on the
>way he writes, that is the knowledge I was eager to have you bring to
>bear.
I made my "science" objection to what he says: He states a good case
too broadly and assumes universality to a view that seems to apply
much more narrowly than he believes. (See point #1 below.)
----------------
NOTE: I will state AGAIN for the record that much of what McGovern
has to say is important and should be heeded. My concerns are as
follows:
----------------
1) As I have said in previous posts, he broadly characterizes the web
as all (or at least all worth considering) and only being like one
part of the web--an information retrieval system--and uses that
too-narrow definition to make too-broad statements. (You, BTW, do the
same thing.)
1b) He ignores the first principle of user centered design: "Your
user isn't you," thus assuming that his interests are universal. He
believes, for instance, that the two and, apparently, only uses for
computers are (1) to do business (within his specific assumptions of
what that means) and (2) for kids to do homework. In other words, our
consideration of computers and the web should be restrained to the
process of gathering data and reconfiguring that data.
2) His comments on graphic design and its role in the web are
injudicious at best. Someone advising people on a team process
-should- think about how their comments will effect the team and the
process. Mr. McGovern does not confine himself to a research role
where he can legitimately say "I'm just expanding knowledge. I am not
in control of what people do with it or think about it." He is acting
as a web "guru" and consultant and his comments are counter to
constructive practice of those roles.* The manner he chooses to
attack bad graphic design** marginalizes ALL graphic design and
reinforces the role of graphic design as final decoration of a
structure. Since this role is part of the problem with the graphic
design he (possibly rightly) dismisses, he is locking the web design
process even more tightly into bad practice.
*You have promoted his newsletter as opposed to specific research so
I will not accept the dodge that you are only talking about him as a
researcher and I am bringing in irrelevant material, BTW.
**I do not assume that he and I would agree on what constitutes bad
graphic design (although I'm sure our sets would largely intersect)
but we won't know that since his comments that I have read have been
general rather than specific.
3) His comments generally lead me to believe that he does not just
decry (as we all should) stupidly-designed websites that ignore the
user and seem to be a tribute to the boredom of frustrated art
students; he does not seem to understand the value of aesthetic
and/or non-practical experience at all.* He seems to follow the
pattern of too many usability wonks who show themselves to be
aesthetophobes whose puritanical view doesn't just fail to appreciate
wider experience but is suspicious of it.
*I have not read as much of his writing as you have. If I am wrong on
this, would you point me to specific references so I can learn?
----------------
Note: I freely admit that part of point #3 is speculation and/or extrapolation.
----------------
>Perhaps it is unfair of me to ask you to read McGovern
>sympathetically for principled content. My view has been that you and
>McGovern agree on more than you disagree on. Rage against what may be
>a few ill-chosen words seems to make it impossible to focus on
>principled areas of agreement.
I thought you were for a scientific method. Aren't most scientific
conversations about points of disagreement? Do astronomers spend a
lot of time congratulating each other on the fact that they all agree
that Mercury is closer to the Sun than Jupiter is?
It would take a long time to list what he and I agree on. After all,
he writes a fair amount.
>Personally, I do not care whether you like Gerry McGovern or not. I
>believe it unfortunate for you to overlook his views because of his
>words on graphic design. Even so, it does not bother me.
************************************
This -should- bother you:
(preface)
As an advocate of design research (as opposed to research on aspects
of design by various disciplines) you could take any of several
(non-mutually-exclusive) positions on the relationship between design
research and design practice and between design research and
education/training for design practice.
It is neither clear to me what your view is or if there is even an
incipient consensus on the value to design, designers, users of
design, or the users of design services to have "design research" as
an academic field (especially as opposed to research on aspects of
design in various fields from their perspectives.)
A few possibilities leap to mind:
1) Design research is a support field for design practice in the
sense that in, say, sports physiology is a support field for sports.
(Not that someone can't be interested in sports physiology for its
own sake or for other application but ultimately there is one main
point.)
2) Design is a powerful and/or important social force, the study of
which is important to society at large (or some subsets thereof) so
design research should be meant to effect the practice of design
while maintaining separate, perhaps even oppositional, interests.
3) The field (fields?) of design research seek knowledge for the sake
of knowledge without specific regard to implementation (akin to
traditional definitions of "pure science") thus the relationship is,
from the research point of view, irrelevant.
----------------
Note: I would love to hear any and all comments on the above
----------------
(okay, I'm finally to the "should bother" part)
Assuming that #1 or #2 predominates, the hearts and minds of
designers are, at some point, the target of some large amount of
design research and, as a parallel, design educators' acceptance of
the value of design PhD degrees (and people with those degrees) is
important.
Let me indulge in a bit of autobiography here (there is a point to
it, I promise.) I am a graphic designer who is analytical and almost
obsessed with the way things work. One of my greatest professional
strengths is as a systems designer--whether IA, identity systems,
packaging for product lines and related families of products,
etc.--and have long advocated rationality, strategic thinking, and
user perspective in both my role as a practicing designer and as a
teacher.
I am generally considered to be rational (even by those who believe I
am often wrong) and (although I make no claims to being either a
researcher or a scientist) scientific in my thinking. In my past I
have worked testing scuba equipment in laboratory conditions and
assisted on human studies of diver performance so am neither
completely unfamiliar with research issues nor am I hostile to
research per se. Several of my friends and my sister are scientists
and I engage in conversation with them about their work. Even though
doing their work is far from my grasp, understanding the process and
the way of thinking is within it.
I have spent a lot of time foisting Fitt's Law and various other UI,
IA, and usability principles on students for years and have been a
voice for students' understanding of context and use.
My main surprise at much of this sort of material is some people seem
to consider it uniquely applicable to the web and foreign to graphic
designers since I am hardly alone in having applied much of it to
printed material for many years nor am I alone in having almost
instinctively applied much of it to interactive media of various
sorts.
I have been strongly and publicly critical of self-indulgence,
ignorance, and misunderstanding and the resultant massive amount of
demonstrably bad graphic design that abounds.
I write about graphic design issues and am best known in some
quarters for my -Design Issues- article advocating the consideration
of teaching graphic design as a liberal art, a nexus of general
knowledge and in doing so ignoring training for practice. One of the
arguments I made in that article is that graphic design as a
knowledge field (as opposed to other disciplines studying graphic
design) would be of more benefit to practice because design
researchers would understand design problems better than researchers
in other fields would.
Given all of that, I would seem to be the easy mark for the broad
acceptance of your approach. However, I find myself suspicious of
most research that I have seen that applies directly to my field(s)
or practice.
----------------
[Note that this is not a condemnation or discouragement of research
or an opposition to science, rationality, or inquiry or any sort.]
----------------
I find myself believing that the primary voices for "research" in my
field(s) have broad areas of blindness that they fail to acknowledge
and that they tend to act as advocates for their political roles in
the process rather than as people with a spirit of open inquiry.
I find myself believing that those who call themselves "design
researchers" have no more insight into what I see as design issues
than do researchers from other fields who inquire about aspects of
design, leaving me wondering about design research degrees and their
value.
----------------
Note: I did not dismiss research or research degrees, I expressed
-doubts- specifically about the value of -design- research degrees in
particular.
----------------
Certainly graphic design practitioners and graphic design educators
have failed miserably in making our case known to, as just one
example, the other people involved in the process of creating
websites. I believe we have, as a group, failed miserably in making
our cases clear to ourselves.
I hold much of graphic design practice in as low a regard as does Mr. McGovern.
That said, it does not bode well for the world of design research and
its relationship with my field(s) of design if one of the very
designers who should be most receptive to that world views it with
suspicion (and, yes, a bit of hostility.)
----------------
Note that the AIGA Experience Design list, while a mixed group to say
the least, is largely populated by people who have titles like
"information architect" rather than "graphic designer" and, as you
noticed in you brief journey there, many of them share my reactions
to the particular researcher you advocate.
----------------
************************************
Back to more McGovern-specific questions:
>Somehow, people have decided that McGovern has a specific
>attitude and this has apparently been repeated so often and so widely
>that the feeling against McGovern overrides anything he has actually
>written.
>[snip]
>If this
>is the context for your feelings, it seems to me there is no point in
>asking for clarity on what McGovern says.
I deduced McGovern's beliefs from reading McGovern. Other designers
have come to the same conclusions I have but I read their comments
-after- reaching my conclusions so I doubt I am victim of some herd
mentality unless my empathy is actually telepathy.
>Come on, Gunnar! No one has ever asked you to be silent. We have
>known each other far too long for you to make this kind of statement.
>I have asked you to focus on the issues, but the focus you choose is
>up to you.
You ask me to focus on what YOU define as the issues. Control of the
question IS control of the answer.
>It is clear that "the relationship of research and researchers to
>practice and practitioners" IS a central subject of design research.
>The relationship of research issues to practical issues and
>practitioners is a recurring and important theme here. This remains a
>list for design research. The practitioners who participate are
>interested in research as well as practice. Practicing designers
>participate in the list in their role as researchers. This is not a
>list where practitioners meet to discuss the kinds of practical,
>professional, vocational, or technical issues common on many design
>lists.
I'm confused. Are you or are you not asking me to drop the subject of
the effect of a person that you have promoted on this list on design
practice? This is a "point of information" request only: I think we
are getting pretty boring here so I don't intend to extend this
conversation. But I cannot help but think that you are saying "I'm
not asking you to shut up about this I'm just asking you to confine
your comments to those I approve of so shut up about this."
Frankly, I have not seen a clear pattern in the conversations on this
list so your understanding of what is appropriate and/or welcome may
be keener than mine. I welcome any advice, restrictions, (or requests
to shut up) from any and all, on or off list.
Gunnar
--
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura CA 93001-3625
USA
+1 805 667 2200
[log in to unmask]
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|
