Filippo
We are quite probably both right ... you say that you disagree with my
statement that "real design" cannot and should not be defined ...
Perhaps we could focus on an area of "design" that has nothing to do
with both of us, and simply start the process with the target: the
"context".
1] the first phase of the context is the group of people involved -
people we know will make use of our actions, as well as (this, if at all
possible) the people we do not know of who might do the same.
2] the second part of the first phase of the context is what these
people want and need and why.
3] the second phase is to think with the concrete "design" knowledge we
have (and hopefully keep adding to), add that to what the people we want
to design for need, and have a good long and hard look at the result:
adequate result, or lacking still, according to the contextual drivers
(massive amount of variables to consider)?
4] the third phase is to realise that the second phase is where we
parted company, although not necessarily so.
3] using the "concrete" - excuse the unintended pun - design knowledge
of a civil engineer usually means knowing how to build bridges and
fly-overs and the like - and the designer need not consult a living soul
except his bosses and the bank manager. But the user? These strange
creatures do not exist. This is first order cybernetics, a very
necessary system of control that relies on the material used to underpin
the physical design of the artefact, and this is done so that this
artefact can keep on doing what it was designed for - a bridge has to
carry the load (as well as for now unforseen increases in load) without
falling down. It will work well with or without people.
The ghastly fact of life is that in my design world we have to work with
a mixture of first order and second order cybernetics - a good traffic
system has to be designed according to the first order principles
(although why these people cannot manage to keep all the traffic lights
in sync is beyond me), BUT, a better traffic system is ALSO "designed"
with second order cybernetic principles in mind: not designed for
observed systems that work the same at all times, but designed FOR
observing systems themselves - people. Design in my world has to be for
observing systems but based on observed systems. It is this mixture of
your world and my world, that come together, that could be the cause of
the confusion and disagreement.
We do not really disagree at all, you see.
It's just that design is like complexity theory says these things are:
they live in different realities, and we have to spot the times that
these realities have to come together in the users' world of the
everyday.
Johann
>>> "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> 06/29/08 2:45 AM >>>
Johann et al,
See embedded comments.
Johann van der Merwe wrote:
> Gavin
> [...]
> Constructivism as a methodology of understanding is
> exactly the same: design is not to be defined as anything, if by
design
> we mean the thinking parts that make up the sociological whole, and
not
> design as the manufacturing parts that are shifted around the globe to
> wherever the cheapest labour is to be found. The definition of design
as
> something that can be written down and followed as a recipe/rule, even
> as guidelines, usually end up as a rule-based method on how-to-design,
> instead of a theory that makes you look at a problem situation
> differently.
Manufacturing and outsourcing are definitely /not/ design - even the
engineers will agree with you on that. And I do not believe that a
recipe/rule oriented definition of design is a good definition either.
But these aren't the only options.
From my POV, a good definition of design will explain how the world is
"better" (yes, yes, I know - how to define "better") because of design,
in such a way that nothing but design could bring those improvements
about.
> Real design (design thinking & design languaging) cannot and should
not
> be defined, in the same way that Bruno Latour refuses to define what
> actor-network thory is and what it can 'do' for you.
Sorry. I just disagree with that. I would, in the fullness of time,
love to understand why you think this, but it will I think take a long
time before my context overlaps with yours enough that I can really get
the meanings you're trying to get across. Not that you don't write
well, Johann; we just come from too-different backgrounds, it seems, for
the understanding to come to me easily. I look forward to the struggle.
> [...]
> Johann
>
Cheers.
Fil
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|