Victor
I agree with the idea that the products / results of design must not,
indeed, cannot, be ignored in favour of an exclusive focus on process,
even though contemporary thinking in design has moved from product to
process. ANY imbalance is bad in the long run, bad for the Long Now
(Brian Eno), and pretty bad for the human (mental) equilibrium we are
looking for (despite the fact that we live in a non-equilibrium world of
dissipative systems).
It does seem, as you correctly state, that "normal" designers are
lagging behind their disciplinary cousins - witness Ken Friedman's posts
around anthropology and insightful writers such as Bonny Nardi
(anthropologist turned designer of information systems). We really
should not lose sight of the whole contextual environment within which
these designed objects have to function - either they will be assigned a
supportive role in the affairs of human systems, or they will be allowed
(by us) to dictate the course of human affairs, and thus the course of
history. Every object we design and place in the world of complex
interactions has a consequence, and some of these possible consequences
are unknown to us.
Who could have guessed that the cell phone, a quite simple idea of
minituarizing and mobilizing the squat old landlocked bakelite
telephone, could one day end up as a device for reporting news events as
they happen. Objects have consequences and do play significant roles in
our lives, as well as the direction that human living and human social
construction is taking. Possibly a direction that we do not like and
have not foreseen.
Bruno Latour has written an amazing article called "Where are the
Missing Masses: Sociology of a Door" @
www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/050.html in which he deals with the
role we assign to what he calls "non-human actors" (cf.
Actor-Network-Theory).
In calling for "a critical lens for evaluating the results of designing"
you just might be highlighting a lack of design (research & eduction)
focus that the information designers (ICT, interaction) are seriously
considering, ahead of the rest of "us"
Johann
>>> Victor Margolin <[log in to unmask]> 08/03/07 7:08 PM >>>
Dear colleagues:
I have a question for the list. Why is so much research attention
given to the process of design and so little to its results - the
products that are the outcomes of designing, their value and social
consequences. It seems to me that one result of design research
should be to serve as a critical lens for evaluating the results of
designing. Of course, research into sustainable products is a
promising direction but there are so many more things that are
designed about which we don't know much. What about the way that new
digital products like cell phones and ipods are changing
socialization values. What about the changing ideas about the design
of public space.We seem to leave all those and other questions
related to the social consequences of designing to other disciplines.
--
Victor Margolin
Professor Emeritus of Design History
Department of Art History
University of Illinois at Chicago
935 W. Harrison St.
Chicago, IL 60607-7039
Tel. 1-312-583-0608
Fax 1-312-413-2460
website: www.uic.edu/~victor
|