Jason,
I am arguing that actions that require little or no
premeditation should not be considered design. Design
implies to me some level of quality of premeditation.
I have seen the definition extended to every type of
action that modifies the environment such as picking
socks in the morning.
Rob Curedale
--- Jason Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I think that the dictionary definitions of Design
> > imply a level of planning for significant action
> > associated with the meaning.
>
> Check. Totally in agreement here.
>
> > An average person would
> > not use the word design to describe an
> insignificant action such
> > as opening a door. The origin from the word "to
> draw
> > implies significant planning and action.
>
> I'll agree that my mental stereotype matches what
> you describe,
> namely that most people wouldn't associate design
> and opening doors.
> In the same vein, most people, including me,
> probably wouldn't see
> the cellphone as a means of piercing social spaces
> (as I think is
> proposed by Mitcham).
>
> There are two points here that I think would be
> interesting to
> pursue. First, why bring in the notion of "an
> average person"? If
> we were to restrict meaning to common beliefs, then
> I propose that we
> would lose out on a lot of interesting subtleties
> and (not always)
> useful perspectives.
>
> The second point is the notion of "insignificant".
> I have a
> colleague working on the design of a helicopter and
> they are spending
> a lot of time on door opening, from both the task
> analysis and
> mechanical design perspectives. In that context,
> door opening is
> significant. In other contexts it may not be.
> Assigning
> significance to an action strikes me as being
> extremely difficult and
> prone to a lot of argument.
>
> So long as the person engaging in the activity
> believes it to be
> significant, isn't that enough?
>
> > I think that it is unhelpfull to extend the
> meaning of
> > the word as commonly understood from significant
> to
> > insignificant planning and actions. It gives the
> > message that design is an insignificatnt activity.
>
> Here is where I think you and I have a different
> view. To me the
> message is that design is independent of the
> activity and dependent
> on the intentions of the person engaging in the
> activity. I might
> find it silly that a person designed a new way to
> tie shoelaces, but
> that doesn't mean that their work can't be
> considered design.
>
> > If we were to invent new meanings for all words
> then
> > our ability to communicate would be reduced.
> Language
> > requires common understanding. I think most people
> > associate significant planning with the word
> "design".
>
> Again, I think we are in agreement here: design and
> significant
> planning are definitely associated. Where I think
> we differ is
> whether significant planning on an activity that one
> (or many) person
> deems trivial is design or not.
>
> Jason
>
|