Chuck,
I understand what you're saying, and I agree.
'Artefact' wasn't a good word to use. I meant by the intended result of
designing, or, perhaps, using your words, the thing that lets the
intention be resolved.
Does that sound more reasonable?
Cheers.
Fil
Charles Burnette wrote:
> On 11/7/05 1:46 PM, "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>>Put another way, the situation is the operating environment into which
>>the designers add some artefact, for the sake of causing a change in
>>that environment.
>
>
> Fil,
>
> I don't believe a designer has to add an artifact to an environment in order
> to transform it (assuming you mean artifact as "object"). The word
> "situation" is better than "context", or even "circumstances" because
> context often involves what went before and what follows, while
> circumstances are attributes of a situation. A situation, in my view, is
> what is focused on by design, whether to understand it (research) or
> transform it (design). A "situation" is not an object or an environment it
> is the focus of an intention, and constrained (given focus and scope) by the
> intention. It may persist over time until the intention is resolved. At
> least that is what I think.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chuck
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|