dear ken, gunnar, et al.
evidence is a word that has great currency in the natural sciences where it
denotes empirical support for theories purporting to describe that evidence
and more. the natural sciences are geared to describe what is invariant in
nature, generalizable to phenomena beyond observations. if an argument can
be made that the theory describes something invariant over time, evidence
for a theory can be extrapolated into the future. strictly speaking, there
is no evidence for extrapolating past evidence in the future. this is all a
matter of plausible arguments, not evidence. (re hand washing, maybe the
lotions doctors use to wash their hands between patients turns out to be
toxic on the long run).
design is fundamentally committed to changing the material support of human
practices. it is future-oriented by definition and when truly innovative,
without precedent and without evidence. all that designers can rely on to
convince others of the virtue of their designs compelling arguments (which
may well include evidence for a theory embodied in the design, but also
aesthetic, ergonomic, economic, social, and political arguments). reasoning
is what you do in your head. it is arguments that can make a difference and
they reside in communication with others.
this is why i suggested in my book on "the semantic turn" that designers
need to make plausible arguments for their designs, arguments that enroll
stakeholders into their project. i maintain that the concept of meaning,
central to human-centered design (and largely absent in engineering),
provides a strong conceptual basis (not taken up by other professions) for
designers to justify their competencies to clients and for advancing
compelling arguments for their designs. chapter 7 is devoted to the
possibility of testing the claims that designers will have to make, and
section 7.5 explores several kinds of validity usable in the formulation of
compelling arguments for a design. referring to evidence obtained on
prototypes or related to common practices (hand washing) is just one kind of
argument. successful claims making by designers goes far beyond providing
past evidence for a design.
evidence-based design is a slogan. it implies a one-dimensional distinction
between evidence-based and non-evidence-based design -- as if the latter
should be dismissed. a design is far richer and its acceptability can make
use of numerous arguments
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Exemplar and Reason
Friends,
Just a quick note. Once again, I did _not_ choose the example as the best
example of the issue at hand, but rather as an example of a problem that
lies outside interpretation. I was demonstrating (or trying to) that some
forms of evidence lie outside and beyond the realm of social construction.
There may be better examples of evidence for legibility. That was not my
purpose in putting the example forward. I used two cases -- hand washing and
blue type on red background -- in an attempt to show that some forms of
evidence rest of principles that do not depend on social construction.
Gunnar's right that other issues come into play here. No one sensible
rejects creativity, artistry, or pleasure as design criteria. If I was
debating that point, we'd be on the same side. Where I differ from many
designers is in proposing that such criteria as creativity, artistry,
elegance, and pleasure come into play IF and ONLY IF the designer also finds
and solves the right problem. Solving the right problem is a necessary
constraint. Without it, the rest is what so often happens: a delightful
solution that fails to do the job.
But that was not my point. The issue here and the reason for choosing those
two examples was simply to raise an issue on the nature of evidence.
If you review my original post, I delimited the examples with a clear
condition and I stated that one could well find other examples for that
point. I chose these because they seemed simple and reasonable. That's the
reason I put those examples forward, and that's the only issue I intended
them to illustrate.
Warm wishes,
Ken
|