Pradeep et al,
My comments are embedded within.
Pradeep G Yammiyavar wrote:
> Dear Terence Love,
>
> Your list of 20 factors is what exactly a Designer ( Industrial / Product)
> adhere to ! How dare Engineers hijack what Designers do!
> It is another matter that Designers may or may not be aware of these
> factors operating in the background.
'kay. First thing: calm down. No one's hijacking anything. If
anything, it highlights the commonalities between different kinds of
design and that, in fact, many of the boundaries between the kinds of
design are unnecessary and undesirable. One might interpret your strong
objection as only reinforcing these silly (I think) boundaries.
> I feel the inability of Designers to filter out theory
> from practice - underdeveloped nomenclature playing a major role - is the
> main handicap of the discipline.
I can understand this, but I'm not sure it isn't just a function of the
relative youth of design as a discipline with an acknowledged
theoretical basis. Indeed, it's not clear to me that we really need to
distinguish that strongly between theory and practice.
First of all, we might consider what we mean by "theory" in design.
Consider the myriad definitions of theory (cf.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Atheory) Some of the definitions
listed could conceivably apply to design; others, not so much.
> You rightly pointed out the difference between Analysis and Design in
> Engineering. Often in Design , it is difficult for designers to
> differentiate the two. While Young engineers mistake acts of Analysis as
> acts of Designing , many young Designers are not aware of the role of
> analysis in their Design thinking often labeling it as 'Intutive'.
This may be difficult for 'young engineers' & 'young designers'. I
interpret 'young' as meaning lacking sufficient education & experience
here. But in practice, and among those with sufficient experience, the
difference is quite stark.
If anything, I'd say it's a failing of the educational system that these
problems, which I experience with my students all the time, are not
properly addressed.
> If at all a central theory of Design exists it will be found at the cusp
> of Analysis and Synthesis.
That's a nice phrase!
> Like how an Engineer is a good designer so is a Designer a good engineer.
> The trouble is many of us have difficulty in accepting the above
> statement.
Again, it's a matter of education. Conventional engineering education
so overemphasises analysis (at least in North America), that I'd have to
say it's more like "A good engineer is a good analyst". That's exactly
NOT right, but that's the way it turns out these days.
> Pradeep Yammiyavar
> Department of Design
> IIT Guwahati. Assam.
Cheers.
Fil
--
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/
|