Dear Rosan,

that means, as I interpret your comment / question, that you "define" 
designing as a kind of sensitive activity /instrument / tool for 
exploring the field of human activities, values, wishes, needs. This 
field cannot (yet) be called a gap, because you say there is not 
necessarily a specification nor a context required.
This sounds like research through design, not "normal" design. But is 
it really right to say that this is possible without the faintest 
idea of a context and even a "solution"? That means you need a kind 
of starting point / a motivation / a "difference that makes a 
difference" to begin your inquiry by designing.
Well, what I am criticizing (am I criticizing?) is the idea of a 
temporal sequentiality, which, as I understand you, should be refuted.
I believe in the beginning there is no separation of problem / 
solution, of specification / context indeed. There is just the 
difference that makes a difference, or the "vague feeling of 
discontent" as I once called it. But in order to start a process of 
design inquiry we have to construct this sequentiality, which 
initiates the iterative cycle of acting and reflecting. Otherwise we 
could not proceed. In this cycle specification and context 
permanently change.
And in the end you construct your final specification and your final 
context, And your specification presents the perfect fit between 
itself and the context. Which applies to design as well as to design 
research. Or not?

Just a comment on a lazy rainy German Sunday afternoon.

Jonas

__________


At 14:15 Uhr +0200 14.08.2005, Rosan Chow wrote:
>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


--