Hi Klaus,
>
> susan, i don't think we are that far apart.  you are worried that
> metaphors are limited to the big picture whereas design has to get to
> details.  true.

I think that research has to present its big picture views, but can't
afford to believe that it has said much until that big picture view is more
fully explained.

If I can beat that tired old "textual voice" horse again, textual voice is
a metaphor that, on the face of it, gives a big picture view that should
clarify new understanding about a quality of the text. But we stopped with
the metaphor of voice. We did not define it with the details needed to
flesh it out. Now the concept is all over the map. No one knows what it is.
It's gotten to the point that one side sees voice as the projection of a
group (the voice of the engineer for example -- David Bartholomae) while
the other side sees voice as the projection of the individual (Peter
Elbow).

> but the lack of details is even more present in theory,
> which is a deliberate attempt to omit details in favor of what is common
> to a large class of objects.

I see what you are saying, but I'm not thinking about details that pertain
only to a single instance, I'm defining details here as elements that can
be generalized across cases.

> think of the laws of falling bodies which
> says nothing about the material of these bodies, their resistance to
> wind, much less whether someone wants something fall down.  all knowledge
> is somewhat general, frameworkish, skeletal, simpler than the details
> that need to be worked out, you call it the end product, i suppose.

For me, there are the details of the singular end product and the details
that can be generalized across cases. For example, I can generalize a
certain design problem I present to my students as "the audience thinks
it's 'x,' but the client (or researcher, or disadvantaged group) know it's
'y.'" But I can't generalize the specific "x" and "y" in any design problem
that arises.
>
> maybe we should be clear what we are talking about.  i was more interested
> with how designers proceed, not with their products. the use of the
> desktop metaphor refers to the product.  what we started to talk about,
> unsettling theory, maybe replacing framework by approach, was in my way
> of thinking concerned with conceptualizing the work that designers do.

I do have an interest in both of these areas. But you are right. The
desktop is a product that might not adequately represent your views. I was
attempting to clarify my own understanding, but in doing that, I muddied
your point.

Best,

Susan
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
Postdoctoral Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213

v. 412.268.2072
f. 412.268.7989