I asked Terry
>> Can you give some examples of graphic design research that is
>> embedded in graphic design software but is unknown to graphic
>> designers and graphic design educators?
and Terry replied
> Maths of font metrics and typesetting formulae, SGML and document
> structures, maths of knockouts/cut-ins/traps/chokes, research in
> usability and ergonomics of visual communication, encryption models,
> data compression theories, maths of gamut management...
And I would argue that most of that could only marginally be described as "graphic design research" for a couple of reasons. Most of the list is applied math for what would have a few years ago been clearly the printing and typesetting industries. Of course the lines are blurred between related industries, especially since graphic designers have inherited much of the (now automated) work formerly done by people in those other industries. It is quite plausible that Terry knows more about font metrics than I do and it is certain that he knows vastly more about applied math than I do but I wonder how much of this was not common industry knowledge thirty years ago when I started in graphic design and how much of this math would be the sort of work that would advance an academic career? Certainly mixing paint colors is arguably chemistry but I've never seen a chem department where it would get you a degree or tenure.
My purpose isn't really to quibble with Terry. It is to get back to something related to Jacques' point about the relationship between design research and design practice. The nature of design is such that it is hard to find a subject that does not intersect with design practice. I wonder about those intersections when it comes to academic structure, however. Since Jacques was at least partly commenting on a conversation that some would characterize as an arcane point of philosophy, let's consider what happens when philosophers leave the philosophy department. How does the role of a bioethicist change if she is in a nursing school rather than a philosophy department? I have little doubt that teaching becomes at least a bit more concrete but does it but I wonder about what research fits better into each academic unit. If the next generation of bioethicists get PhDs in nursing rather than philosophy, what does that mean (or what should it mean)?
This isn't a general call for narrowness or balkanizing universities but what does it do for the relationship between practice and research if the people who claim to be in the same field lack vital common interest?
Terry's engineering background makes him see technical issues as paramount but Johann's examples bring me to areas where I can see a less arbitrary political relationship between research and practice. Much of Karel's work and most of Kate LaMere's research (some of you might remember Kate from the DRS conference in 2008) could easily fit in at a sociology department but the work is directly grounded in graphic design and graphic design practice and could not be performed by someone with sociology training but no design background.
From my perspective, the social science/design border is where it's easy to make a case for "design research" belonging with applied/professional design. At this point, little of that is embedded in software but the idea that it could be is intriguing. (Ken--Can you get Dori working on an anthro-bot?)
Social science brings me back full circle. The one question that intrigues me most is about "research in usability and ergonomics of visual communication." Terry--Can you give me an example of such research that is embedded in graphic design software but is unknown to graphic designers and graphic design educators?
Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006
at East Carolina University:
+1 252 328 2839
[log in to unmask]
|