Dear Peter,
I agree. The role of concept in early stage design is important. But I think
there are advantages in using a more sophisticated concept of 'concept'
than is used in visually-based collaborative design.
There are good examples of collaborative processes using concepts in
conceptual stage engineering design that show up some issues that are not at
the moment well addressed in theories about collaborative design in other
areas.
In engineering design, there is widespread use of concepts that help address
design situations where complexity is very high and drive the choice of
design solution. This much is similar to visually-based design.
A key difference is that many of these concepts are abstractions whose
primary role is to facilitate design optimisation, reasoning, and enable
different aspects of a design to be brought together into a common explicit
language that can be used to modify these abstract concepts in ways that
would echo their real world behavior.
This is of significance in collaborative design practice because this kind
of approach to 'concept' then becomes something that can be relatively
unambiguously shared between designers.
An example of a similar approach in visually-based design is the use of SGML
and its derivatives in the design of documents. In theory, rules can be
embedded in SGML that include optimisation support for design decisions
based on design research findings in areas of aesthetics, desirability,
readability, universal design, legibility, cross-media repurposing, etc.
This would rework the role of 'concept' in collaborative design to something
in which much implicit 'understanding' (or delusion - depends on your take!)
is made more explicit for the purpose of collaboratively improving designed
output.
Best wishes,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
[log in to unmask]
===
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Retallick [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, 2 June 2006 9:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Collaboration within designers
Sorry if this is a double posting but I'm getting strange messages. If
there is a clearly defined practice then designers should have no trouble
getting on board at any stage of the process. I am reminded of a book called
"The Ten Faces of Innovation" by Tom Kelley (IDEO). About the only thing
missing is a 'concept' which is very important. I've been talking to
architects, landscape architects and urban planners about this and it
doesn't seem to register. Talking about concepts to these people is like
speaking into a long dark tunnel in my experience. One landscape architect
said they spend five minutes on that and the rest is technical.I suppose you
could call it a common structure or language that needs to be
understood?Peter Retallick MDesSydney--- On Fri 05/26, Swanson, Gunnar <
[log in to unmask] > wrote:
From: Swanson, Gunnar [mailto: [log in to unmask]]To:
[log in to unmask]: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:38:18 -0400Subject: Re:
Collaboration within designersThe interesting question may not be the
definition of collaboration as =much as what ways designers can work
together with designers and others. =The prevailing method in many areas is
to the left side of a chart that =ranges from radically individual to
radically communal. It is not =surprising that the distribution of design
processes often tends to lean =left on such a chart; it is very easy to
imagine what a radically =individual work process would be and hard to
imagine what would really =deserve the adverb attached to communal.Designers
showing up to a meeting with other designers could be part of =a
collaborative process if there is a sense of shared ownership of the =ideas
represented. If the process is "choose our favorite solution" then =it might
be a stretch to call the design work collaborative, even if an
=initial design decision is. If the other designers look at a
=representation of a solution and feel free to change, add to, subtract
=from, refine, or use as a springboard to other approaches, then that =could
become a fairly communal process.A challenge I have been grappling with (as
a working designer and =graphic design teacher, not as a researcher) is how
designers and others =can best share thoughts and understanding early in the
design process. =In my experience, this is tricky to manage. Verbal
decisions about =design made early often lock the design process into a
too-narrow range =and asking people with no design experience to make
decisions they can't =possibly understand is both stupid and unfair. On the
other extreme, =bringing a finished artifact or plan to others and asking
for an up or =down vote disallows the application of broader experience and
diverse =points of view.Gunnar----------Gunnar SwansonSchool of Art &
DesignEast Carolina
UniversityGreenville, North Carolina [log in to unmask] 252 328
2839> I would like you opinion about:>> When each person (
referrring a group of designers) brings prepared =work> to a meeting ( a
meeting with designers), is it true that they are not> collaborating when
they design the work.>> Thanks>>> Arminda Lopes
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
|