Dear Jerry and Ken

Describing the design process and worse, trying to define Design, does
get everybody into a tizzy, all knotted up, and now I believe it more
than ever before.

Jerry, your arguements quoted below reminds me of a lecture by Prof
Bruce Archer at NID when he showed us a diagram that explained the
process of design from the point of view of potential or goal setting
(intentions) on the one side  and specifications and descriptions on the
other, shown as a set of interpenetrating cones along a time-line of
decision making. According to him, when we set out to design we have an
infinite or almost infinite set of possibilities from our point of
departure while the specifications would be close to zero. However as we
take a series of decisions along a time line towards the ultimate goal
the possibilities offered by the particular situation of intention start
diminishing along the cone till it reaches the apex at the specific
solution or synthesis. At the same time the other cone, that which
represents specifications, moves in the opposite direction and from
being almost zero at the tip it grows to be almost infinite when the
final solution is manifested abnd articulated. The early decisions are
strategic in nature and the later ones are more tactical in nature. I
have made this diagram as a model which I use to explain this phenomenon
to my students since I could not find the original offered by Prof
Archer anywhere (except in my memory of that lecture), unless someone on
this list can find it for me.

A business leader in Ahmedabad explained this phenomenon to me many
years later in another way when he was describing the process of drug
discovery and approval process particularly for the US markets where he
said that for a single drug to be finally approved through the rigerous
process of State regulatory approval system he would have to ship out as
many as seven truck-loads of information in the form of paper documents
to achieve the closure of the process.

I wonder how many truck-loads of documents would be needed to meet the
task set by Ken, if we are to assume the same levels of critical
definition that is required by the US drug administration?

Ken, you have not specified the kind of shoe that would be laced. Nor
the number and location of the holes, if any, that would need to be
threaded to achieve the anchoring of the lace or laces before we can
actually tie the laces down in one "informed gesture" that is based on
the description that is to be produced by members of this list. The
immposibility of the task gets more onerous when one looks at the many
kinds of laces that are now available (see online sources) all using
numerous weave techniques and with new hardware being invented each day
to make non-threaded laces in the form of drop-in-place or hook along
kind of lace-stays, the task gets even more interesting. Where do we
begin and where does it all end? Jerry is right when he declares that at
any stage we would have to set a lower limit to what is accepted as
known, otherwise we may have to define each and every word in the
description and the unstated set of words that would make the ones used
make sense as a language. What about the language of description, can it
be in plain English? In India we have 14 official languages accepted by
the State!!

I will let you ponder this one and I am not going to attempt the dinner
date with Ken but I would like to look through the window at those who
finally make it, good luck.

With warm regards

M P Ranjan
from my Mac at home on the NID campus
18 August 2007 at 4.00 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 (changed in January 2006)
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://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com
education blog DCC: http://www.design-concepts-and-concerns.blogspot.com/
education Blog Data Viz: http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________________________________


Jerry Diethelm wrote:
> 
> snip-----
> 
> I will pay one hundred British pounds to anyone who can write a
> successful description (plan, design) that enables others to tie
> their shoelaces by carefully following the words in the description
> and only by following the words in the description.
> 
> snip-----
> 
> Jerry wrote:
> 
> First make the first half of a Granny or Square knot and then tie a bow.
> 
> Chris Rust wrote:
> 
> As one of the appointed judges in this competition I have to rule that
> Jerry's entry appears to meet the criteria as set out in Ken's last message.
> 
> snip-----
> 
> But Ken demurred:
> 
> Jerry's solution is an entertaining effort, but it's a trick
> solution, rather like Alexander loosing the Gordian knot.
> 
> and-----
> 
> Good faith entries.... No swords, no relying on past knowledge.
> And yes, I'll acknowledge that one must speak a language well enough
> to tie shoelaces by following the words in a series of articulate
> instructions. This rules out memory and prior experience...
> 
> snip-----
> 
> And Jerry responds:
> 
> Some people I know will always consider designing an entertaining trick.
> Abracadabra!  In this case, my design strategy - to reveal the secret - was
> to create a description at the highest conceptual level that was not a
> tautology.  All descriptions, of course, require concepts and an
> understanding of the concepts that they employ.  Below like any competent
> computer programmer, I continue by defining the terms Half-Granny and Bow.
> 
> There is no way to shut out prior knowledge or memory, no way to avoid the
> meaning of terms or common operations, such as make a loop, wrap around or
> pull through. All the concepts and operations I've used are common to
> everyday life and experience.  Finding people to test this description who
> aren't familiar with these things probably means finding people who couldn't
> tie their shoes anyway.
> 
> At what level of description would Ken consider the concepts and terms in
> the making of a description out of bounds?  How could one ever operate
> without memory?  Or not bring their prior experience to bear?
> 
> And so once more:
> 
> To tie your shoelaces:
> 
> First make the first half of a Granny or Square knot and then tie a bow.
> 
> To make a Half-Granny, step one, take one lace and wrap it around the other
> lace one time and pull the laces tight.  The Half-Granny one-time
> overlapping of the laces holds the laces tight and becomes the base for the
> bow.
> 
> A bow is a knot with two loops. To make a bow, step two, make a loop with
> one lace and wrap the other lace around the base of the loop pulling it
> around and under itself and then through the wrap far enough to make the
> second loop.
> 
> Holding a loop of the bow in each hand, pull the bow tight against the
> Half-Granny base to complete the tying process.
> 
> Now tie the other shoe so that you do not trip on your laces when you get up
> to walk around.
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 
> I hereby foreswear the meal and dough but keep my shining sword.  I call for
> a test.
> 
> One judge down and two to go.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jerry Diethelm
> Architect - Landscape Architect
> Planning & Urban Design Consultant
> 
>     Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
>            and Community Service
>     2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Email Scanned for Virus & Dengerous Content.