Dear Kathryn and all,

I have, a bit on a distance, followed the discussion about "a simple  
definition of design". I like the suggestion by Gavin and Kathryn (see  
below) about trying to make something out of these all posts. But even  
more, I would like to see many of us (those) contributing here writing  
books where we could explore many and diverse definitions and  
interpretations of what design is. The more the better! I am not sure  
the search for a "simple definition" is what is needed. If you are,  
for instance, in sociology you can find hundreds and hundreds of books  
about sociology, what is is, what is should be, etc. The problem with  
the a discussion is of course the format. It is not possible to fully  
develop a more complex argument that would support a certain  
definition, which leads to many misunderstandings and sometimes almost  
vulgar interpretations. These kind of topics need to be treated in  
full length by one voice in its required richness and complexity. I  
would like to see many voices, many books, many interpretations. And  
then one day we will suddenly have a book or two that synthesizes the  
field in a way that becomes a standard or classical work. But those  
breakthroughs need all the other attempts. So, write more books :-)

Best
Erik
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Erik Stolterman
Professor of Informatics • Director of HCI/design
School of Informatics • Indiana University

web: http://hcid.informatics.indiana.edu/eriksite/
blog: http://transground.blogspot.com/

4 jul 2008 kl. 15.21 skrev Kathryn Simon:

> I would enjoy exploring that idea. The concept of design especially  
> at this
> moment is at an emergent stage.
>
> There are some critical differences and similarities that through
> penetration may just enlarge the space of design. Communications and  
> graphic
> design is very different than fashion or product design-and  
> exploring those
> differences rather than just accepting them or looking for sameness  
> might
> lead to some unchartered terrain.
>
> Thoughts? participation? proposed process to do this?
>
> Kathryn
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Gavin Melles <[log in to unmask] 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> You know what might be fun is for half a dozen of us (Fil, Kathy,  
>> Gunnar,
>> Johann, Terry ...) to revisit the conversations archived on this  
>> topic
>> recently and develop the sometimes cryptic thoughts we have around  
>> this into
>> a 'dialogic' paper which also references our ideas and does not  
>> necessarily
>> reach some kind of final closure (yes I hate that word but..)
>>