Dear Klaus, Terry and others,
A small elaboration/clarification and a comment/question:
I use 'specification' to describe the aim/objective of design in my
dissertation where I contrast it with that of modern science.In other words,
'specification' is contrasted with 'generalization'. I am toying this pair of
concepts with others that are often used to describe designing:
determined|undetermined, actual|potential, existent|non-existent and
concrete|abstract. The more specific, the more determined, actual, existent and
concrete. In the sense that I use 'specification', a proposal is a (type of)
specification.
But a specific proposal must FIT to a specific/proposed CONTEXT to be called a
design? Having suggested that, i believe there is not necessarily a fix
temporal order between a specific proposal and a specific context for them to
appear. In other words, a context doesn't necessarily exist before a proposal.
By implication, purpose or having a sense of purpose (intention) doesn't
necessarily come before a design.
Best regards,
Rosan
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> dear terry,
> i realize the overlap of the terms proposal, specifications, plans, and one
> might also add models. the issue of encouraging others to accept a design,
> implied in proposal but absent in specifications and plans, as you point
> out, is my reason for this word choice. i would say whatever designers do,
> it will never come to fruition unless it grabs others, clients, engineers,
> business people, sales persons, users and more. specifications arise in
> contractual relationships, as you say, and take for granted that they are
> meant to be implemented. they work well when in technical settings, but
> they fail when politics, tastes, emotions are involved and need to be
> considered. i would say that these political issues, as you call them are
> always involved. this is why designers make attractive renderings in
> addition to technical drawings
> klaus
|