i am happy,
chuck,
we agree.
now comes the challenge: why don't you give us an example of your kind of
theory that states the designer's intentions and whatever else your theory
requires so that it's features can be put to a test. if you propose an
unfamiliar notion of theory, you ought to be able to demonstrate how it
works.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:50 PM
To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Design -- Short Response to Klaus
On 12/1/05 9:11 PM, "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> if
> intentions are meant to be the criteria for design strategy (or chuck's
> theory), i would expect them to state these with the possibility of
testing
> whether they can be realized by whom, where, under which circumstances and
> with which resources.
Klaus, We agree! Except that, in my view, intentions determine the criteria
and ultimately the tests and methods by which their satisfaction is to be
judged or measured. To fail to include the intention is to fail to declare
the basis for a meaningful test and thus to indicate who, where, what
circumstances or what resources are required, relevant or available for that
task. Sometimes critical thought is the only available "test" that theories
can be subjected to. (Incidently, all of the things you mentioned are
covered in my definition of theory. (factors, circumstances, determining
effectiveness, etc.))
Best regards,
Chuck
|