Dear Professor Buchanan
I have misunderstood your question. Sorry.
You ask "...is whether the ultimate test of the validity of a design is
acceptance by users?"
My simple answer to that question is that there is no ultimate validity
or truth that any design can have since each may have to be seen in the
context of the intentions of the designer and the socio-cultural and
temporal context that it is intended to serve. However my earlier answer
was not about validity in the logical sense but about the measure of
success of a design and this is measured by its acceptance in the market
or by society, as the case may be, although it can be measured by other
criteria as well, by groups of experts, by peers, by potential for the
future etc..
Design cannot be viewed independent of the context and an evaluation of
the impact of any particular design offering should be viewed within
that particular context and in the particular form in which it is
offered. Design without a context is an object without meaning although
each of us could give it new meaning in our own readings of that object
but the meaning then comes from our reading and is not from the object
itself.
So the term "validity" corresponds to truth and design is not about
truth but about reality. Science is about finding truths which design is
not. "Success" corresponds to achieving set goals and objectives and
here it would cover the intentions of the designer as well as the client
groups that we are out to serve.
There are many levels of design action, and I have defined four levels
of design action in a paper listed below for a conference in Brazil in
1998. Each of these levels uses varying types of knowledge and skills
and these actions can be categorised from the tactical to the strategic.
Some make small incremental changes while other offer radical
transformations. In my presentation at the IDSA conference last year I
shared a model of the expanding vortex of design where I have used the
stone in the pond metaphor again to show the expanding concerns of
design that are moving from material and structure, form and aesthetic,
to economy and society and environment, to politics, law and
ethics....all of which can show us another larger circle of concern and
substantially change the whole question of validity at each expanded
level of concern.
I hope that I have addressed your question adequately this time and i do
look forward to your critique and comments. I am concerned with ethics
and the interpretation of responsibility and would like to hear your
views on the matter.
With warm regards
M P Ranjan
from my office at NID
28 July 2007 at 5.55 pm IST
Prof M P Ranjan
Faculty of Design
Head, Centre for Bamboo Initiatives at NID (CFBI-NID)
Chairman, GeoVisualisation Task Group (DST, Govt. of India) (2006-2008)
National Institute of Design
Paldi
Ahmedabad 380 007 India
Tel: (off) 91 79 26623692 ext 1090
Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
Fax: 91 79 26605242
email: [log in to unmask]
web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp
web domain: http://www.ranjanmp.in
blog: <http://design-for-india.blogspot.com
Richard Buchanan wrote:
> Dear Professor Ranjan,
>
> Thank you for the interesting exposition of your perspective on the
> nature of design. I am familiar with this view in your own work and
> in the related views of others in the design community. It certainly
> seems to be a sensible way of thinking about design, practical in
> various ways and useful for your own developments in the classroom and
> in forms of practice. We could talk about this at length, but I want
> to pursue my original question and better understand your view before
> discussing the broader matter.
>
> The original question, now that we do not have to be concerned about
> an interpretation of what Bonsieppe may have meant, is whether the
> ultimate test of the validity of a design is acceptance by users? I
> might infer your answer from your note, but since you are here in the
> flesh, so to speak, it is better to rely on your direct response as
> "best evidence" than on my possibly weak inference. What I see is an
> equivocation in your answer, when you distinguish various forms of
> "market" and further distinguish "user" into personal and social
> elements---with the latter implicated in shaping culture. The
> equivocation seems to push off the question of ultimate test to some
> future time of acceptance. Or, in effect, you have offered a limited
> interpretation of "ultimate" that is local and temporal. The question
> does, indeed, require some careful thought, because it can easily
> involve us in contradictions or apparent contradictions. But I am
> interested in your view as a way of developing the thought perhaps
> together in sustained conversation.
>
> So, do you believe that user acceptance, however one specifies the
> "user," is the ultimate test of the validity of design, whether as
> concept or as actualized expression or object or product or any other
> embodiment of the concept?
>
> Again, I was prompted to ask this question because of the simultaneous
> discussion of colonialism in academic disciplines and design, where
> acceptance by users---whether the colonizers or the colonized---seems
> an open matter that bears on what is an ultimate test. By the way, an
> important philosopher has commented that the concept of
> "responsibility," which was invented in the late eighteenth century,
> is a sign of, among other things, the failure of moral and political
> philosophy in the period. The responsibility of the designer is a
> significant question, and your view from a country and culture that
> had to bear a colonial status for a time is valuable.
>
> But the deeper interest behind my question is, of course, the ethical
> grounding of design.
>
> Richard
>
> Richard Buchanan
> Carnegie Mellon University
>
>
> On 7/28/07 9:36 AM, "Ranjan MP" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Professor Buchanan
>
> Your question needs some reflection and I do look forward to your
> comments as well.
>
> Design for me is a long journey and in a recent lecture for my
> students I had devised a model which I did mention on this list a
> few weeks ago. You can see this model on my website at this link
> below and it is accompanied with a voice file of my full
> description of the journey in case you are interested.
> <http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/About_Design_Theory/FileSharing83.html>
> The "Design Journey" downloads are at the bottom of that page.
>
> However, I will give you a summary here since I could not define
> design but I can try and explain it in the model of the journey. I
> speak of design using a metaphor of casting a stone in the pond.
> The design intentions are to achieve a goal and the first thoughts
> are in the form of a perception that simultaneously triggers off
> an imagination(s) which can only be seen or felt by the person
> doing the imagining. At this stage it is internal to the person
> and we could call this person a 'designer'. I call this internal
> process 'inploration' since it continues for quite some time
> internally through images and feelings as well as sensory
> knowledge that is informed by touch, etc. before it manifests
> itself as explorative offerings as sketches, models and field
> contacts, all explorations in a meandering form of journey, and in
> the process we gather insights along the way. It is these insights
> that give us the conviction to act and make more tangible models
> both to test as well as to prove the concept in search of support
> and approval from those who can partner with making the design a
> reality, a manifestation in the world, and if successful with a
> wider acceptance by the intended users as well.
>
> However, at the stage when the design is launched to market the
> designer also looses control and the effects are no longer managed
> by the designer alone since the other players take charge and
> multiple forces start to act on the creation in the form in which
> it is manifested. However, the designer has to still contend with
> the responsibility for their creations and it here that the
> ethical dilemma would definitely exist and I would be keen to hear
> your interpretation of this dilemma.
>
> At the early stages we could call the models offered as design
> concepts, not fully formed and manifested as yet, but at later
> stages the specifications become more and more decided and the
> offering (object, message, event , infrastructure or service as
> the case may be) gets more and more differentiated from other
> similar offerings or alternatives and it would take on a character
> of its own. When such an offering is fully accepted by society it
> shapes culture especially when it is absorbed into the fabric of
> that society and this is perhaps what I have meant by the term
> "market" and also what was intended by Gui Bonsieppe, in his table
> in the book, "Interface".
>
> Yes, in this sense, design needs to be manifested in reality and
> find acceptance otherwise it will remain a "design concept" or an
> "award winning design" that was never produced or accepted by
> consumers and users in the field. This tells me that peer approval
> alone does not guarantee the success of a design but its
> acceptance by society does, even if acceptance may take many years
> after offering is made.
>
> I look forward to your interpretation and commentary on this view
> of design
>
> In my note to Thomas Rasmussen this morning I had described
> briefly our explorations in the field study when we undertook our
> research on bamboo in the Northeast of India. Now, many years
> later we have some concrete expressions to show for all these
> explorations in the form of a series of design offerings that we
> do believe will help local communities change their own lives and
> employment potentials using our offerings of both form and
> strategy that are embedded in our design offering, some tangible
> and most of it intangible. take a look at some of these products
> on show in Germany this month and I have given links to all our
> projects on bamboo done over the past ten years or so on the
> recent post on my blog at this link below: Our field research was
> done more than twenty years ago.
> <http://design-for-india.blogspot.com/2007/07/ifa-exhibitions-in-stuttgart-and-berlin>
>
> So what I mean by market is not just the commercial market place
> that are driven by corporate industry but also live spaces that
> are occupied by society in the process of shaping culture and I do
> beileve that design helps shape culture in its many
> manifestations, both at the small and the significant change
> making moves that is determined by society and not by the designer
> at all.
>
> I hope that I have been able to convey my intended meaning here
> and I am curious to hear your views. Thank you for your question.
>
> With warm regards
>
> M P Ranjan
> from my office at NID
> 28 July 2007 at 7.00 pm IST
> Prof M P Ranjan
> Faculty of Design
> Head, Centre for Bamboo Initiatives at NID (CFBI-NID)
> Chairman, GeoVisualisation Task Group (DST, Govt. of India)
> (2006-2008)
> National Institute of Design
> Paldi
> Ahmedabad 380 007 India
>
> Tel: (off) 91 79 26623692 ext 1090
> Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
> Fax: 91 79 26605242
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
> web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp
> web domain: http://www.ranjanmp.in
> blog: <http://design-for-india.blogspot.com
> Richard Buchanan wrote:
>
>
> Dear Professor Ranjan,
>
> In your reply to Thomas Rasmussen you offered an interpretation of
> Bonsieppe, to the effect that the ultimate test of the
> validity of a design
> is acceptance by users.
>
>
>
>
>
> However what I take away from Bonsieppe is that he would
> distinguish
> between a design concept and a "design in the field" that
> is found
> acceptance in a "market place" or in the hands of numerous
> users (market
> success), which is the ultimate test of the validity of a
> design,
> acceptance by users.
>
>
>
>
>
> You mention that the distinction works for you, so I assume
> you endorse this
> interpretation of Bonsieppe.
>
> Independent of whether this is an accurate interpretation of
> Bonsieppe, I
> would like to ask if you really believe that the "ultimate"
> test--not merely
> "a" test--is acceptance by users? It would seem to have serious
> implications for design ethics.
>
> I notice that simultaneous with your post there is a
> discussion of the
> colonialism of academic fields and perhaps design itself--a
> view with which
> one may agree or disagree on different criteria. This would
> seem to raise a
> question in regard to your own view of validity--if you really
> believe that
> the ultimate test of the validity of a design is acceptance by
> users.
>
> I will be interested in your response.
>
> Richard
>
>
> Richard Buchanan
> Carnegie Mellon University
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Email Scanned for Virus & Dengerous Content.
>
>
|
