Dear Glenn,
It seems to me that the point Chris makes is not that averages move, but that
many issues affect the validity of research. The "averages" don't so much
move as that they differ depending on what we measure and how we measure
it.
The thread so far has been interesting, but it is as interesting to me for the
quality of discourse as it is for the data. Without seeing the
reports you cite,
it is difficult to agree (or to disagree) with the points put forward here.
Empirical data are certainly important -- I'd need to see the data, to know
how they were collected, and to see the conclusions drawn from them before
saying that the empirical data have been put to valid use.
Let me give a vastly oversimplified example to illustrate. (If you follow the
New York Times column of economist Paul Krugman, you'll see what I mean
by this.) It's clear, for example, that some Americans are far wealthier than
ever before while others are less well off. Imagine that we have a population
of 100 people who each earn USD 1,000 per year in an economy where the
total economic product is USD 100,000 a year. Their "average" income is
USD 1,000. Now let's say that the total economy grows by 20% to yield
USD 120,000 per year -- while taxes and corporate restructuring change the
environment so that our 100 people no longer earn USD 1,000 each. Instead,
98 people now earn USD 150 per year and 2 people now earn USD 52,650 per
year. The total economy is certainly more prosperous, and the "average" annual
income is now USD 1,200. Those would be the empirical facts. What those
empirical facts mean is open to interpretation. (If you want to see this on
a grand scale with carefully argued reasoning from the evidence, read
Krugman. on how the US economy has shifted over the past two or three
decades and what it means for the "average" citizen of the United States.
It's true that "... research - the sort backed up by empirical data,
[is] exactly
the kind of stuff 'design research' needs today to be taken more seriously by
industry and others." You and Chris and most of us on this list probably
agree on this. The question is whether this specific series of claims and the
evidence that supports meets the standards that Chris -- or anyone, for that
matter -- would see as reasonable research backed up by empirical data
interpreted in a valid way.
Remember the apocryphal example of the fellow who supposedly won a
chili cook-off by making a chili that uses one tablespoon of every competing
chili? As a cook, I can imagine that it _might_ be possible under very
specific constraints. As someone who prizes a reputation as a good cook,
I can tell you just how it could go wrong, and how many different ways I
could imagine this as the recipe for a dog's dinner. Not my dog, though. He
has acquired the services of a personal chef, and we don't average things out
in my kitchen.
I know some of the research on perceptions of beauty. Most of what I've
seen involves specific constraints, many assumptions, and a series of cultural
conventions that must all be factored in to any serious interpretation. Given
these factors, offering a satisfactory account or causal explanation
is difficult.
The notes posted here point to interesting ideas, and to the difficulties.
So I don't think Chris disagreed with you. I think he found the material
interesting, as I did. But I think he is raising question on the mechanism
and on the validity of competing possible interpretations. And it sounds to me
as though he might like to see the material before moving from a willingness
to be interested in plausible-sounding science to agreeing that the
science is valid.
As my dog Jacob often says, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Yours,
Ken
Glenn Johnson wrote:
>Chris - are you saying that being 'easy on the eye' is not applicable - or
>just suggesting that there is a 'moving visual average', which invalidates
>the research?
>
>I thought this kind of research - the sort backed up by empirical data,
>was exactly the kind of stuff 'design research' needs today to be taken
>more seriously by industry and others.
in response to Chris Rust, who wrote:
> >Without wishing to comment on the (plausible sounding) science reported
>>by Glenn, I'd just like to say that what is "average" or normal varies
>>wildly with place, circumstance and time and is endlessly mutable. I was
>>informed recently (sorry I don't have a citation) that typography
>>standards that were proven to be highly readable a few years ago have
>>now been found to be difficult to read, presumably because they have
> >become unfamiliar/unfashionable.
--
Ken Friedman
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Oslo
Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen
+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat
email: [log in to unmask]
|
