fil,

i am glad that you see the virtual redundancy between design and
human-centeredness. but it is important to point this out, again and again,
as there are all kinds of activities -- terry's several hundred versions of
design -- of improving something that are not necessarily human-centered, or
better said, that manage to reduce the human interest in something to
technical terms and treat them thereafter that way.

david sless' example of traffic jams during rush hours is a good one in this
regard. engineers, by their very training, are more inclined to define the
problem in technically solvable terms.

you are right, and i share your experiences, that even in meetings on
engineering designs there is much non-technical talk which may ultimately
determine whether a(n engineering) design is adopted or not. however, most
engineers do not particular like being subjected to "irrational" and
"emotional" considerations, like to stay "rational," and prefer "technical"
arguments, which is what their training has taught them to prefer. the word
"specifications" is at home in such supposedly rational proceedings and it
often leads, as terry pointed out, to contracts and serve as measurable
criteria for subsequently determining whether something was done correctly.

while the need to convince others of the virtue of a design is central to
all kinds of design activities, i am suggesting that human-centered
designers cannot treat this as a necessary evil but as their primary focus.
convincing a client of the virtue of a design entails enabling that client
to convince other needed stakeholders of the virtue of a design, etc. all
the way to convincing the user of the virtue of a design and so on. this
focus distinguishes (human-centered) design from (technology-centered)
design. the latter is simply more narrowly focused and the need to convince
is not much reflected upon.

klaus

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Filippo A.
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a specific proposal that fits?


Hi; just a quick followup to 2 paragraphs (below) of Klaus's.

While it's true that there's plenty of highly technical and
institutionalised specs and processes for treating them, Klaus perhaps
inadvertently gives the impression that there is not also alot of
"...need to convince, to make
something attractive, to show the benefits of a design, or what i have been
saying to enroll stakeholders into the project of a design." (Klaus's
words).

I've participated in and observed all kinds of engineering design
activities, and I'm always surprised by the highly untechnical
give-and-take, the arguing, the discussion that occurs. Sure, not all
the stakeholders are present, except in a microcosmic way.

I too believe strongly and try to push human-centred designing. Indeed,
I'd say that saying that designing is something that is human-centred is
rather a redundancy - just one that most people - or at least most
engineers - have forgotten about.

Cheers.
Fil

--
Filippo A. Salustri, PhD, PEng
Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University, 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
tel: 416/979-5000 x7749 fax: 416/979-5265
[log in to unmask] http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil

----- Original Message -----
From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, August 14, 2005 1:32 pm
Subject: Re: a specific proposal that fits?

> [...]
> in engineering, there must be the possibility of testing the
> results of
> implementing a specification. most engineering specifications
> spell out the
> measures an engineering design has to satisfy to be acceptable
> (includingtolerances for variations). there have to be the
> materials and
> manufacturing processes available for realizing a specification or the
> specification becomes void. jules verne did not write
> specifications for
> building a space ship to visit the moon, he left this for future
> engineersto work out. his was a novel that nevertheless fuelled
> the imagination of
> many. and in this regard the relationship to design begins.
>
> as you know i have been promoting human-centered design. in my
> opinion,engineers have it relatively easy to work in more or less
> institutionalizedenvironments where specifications can be written
> and an authority tells
> someone to implement them. terry talks in terns of contractual
> relations,and he is right. in design, there is more of a need to
> convince, to make
> something attractive, to show the benefits of a design, or what i
> have been
> saying to enroll stakeholders into the project of a design. ask
> yourselfwhy designers use colors, their artistic flair, fascinating
> presentations,cultural sensitivities, etc in contrast to the black
> and white technical
> drawings of engineers (who have to convince only fellow engineers).
> the
> context of design is primarily a human one. if a design does not grab
> anyone's attention, if it does not create supporters, resources,
> enthusiasm,it is lost, buried in the trash of unrealized ideas.
> good ideas (and i am
> not sure what these are independent of the fact that they must)
> catch on.
> to highlight this difference, i have chosen to call the product of
> designers: "proposals." (and i have written a book about it,
> currently in
> press).
> [...]