Dear Terence,
Thanks for your interesting description of the change of design. Even though
the changes you point to are in many cases real and happening, I cannot
agree with your conclusions. You are correct in that the complexity in
design is increasing, and I also agree that new tools can help designers to
address certain aspects of that complexity, but design is still about
creating something new, something that will fit an infinite complex reality,
and not a problem to which more sophisticated methods and tools can find
"solutions". Your five changes at the end of your post rest on a notion of
design that is contrary to how I understand design. To me, you are
advocating a development where design is moving into a problem solving
paradigm, which to me is exactly what design should not do! Your push for a
"scientification" (if that is a word) of design is clear.

To me, the increased complexity in the world, leads to the opposite
conclusion. Design is an approach that can deal with infinite complexity due
to its different philosophy, methods and techniques. It can deal with the
complexity of people's wants, needs, and desires. These problems do not have
given solutions, they constantly change, people change, desires change.
Reality change. It is not about finding perfect "solutions" that can be
"discovered" with scientific methods, it is about being able to on a
detailed level understand human conditions and create inspiring designs that
support people in their handling of their lifeworlds. So, it is crucial that
design as an approach recognizes its own strength and do not try to copy
science or engineering in order to cope with complexity. Design can and
should develop its own rationality, logic and rigor for its own purposes
without copying less suitable methods from other approaches.  And there are
good signs in the field today that design is slowly moving in a direction
where it is developing its own uniqueness and of course removing old habits
not suitable for today's design challenges.

Best
Erik

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Alireza,
>
> In looking at the trajectories of development of  subfields of design, it
> is
> obvious that there are changes afoot that are much bigger than people are
> recognizing. This is in much the same way that many designers and design
> researchers haven't realized how completely computer automation has
> replaced
> many  professional design practices of 20 years ago.
>
> Design activities and theories are changing very very fast - many current
> ideas in design research are already dead - just not yet buried! The
> following is how I see things. I'm aware others see things differently and
> some will try to cling to the past.
>
> Design research and design activity is changing significantly in several
> ways. The changes are particularly relevant to the Art and Design
> traditions
> of designing. They are especially significant for human-centered or
> user-centered design practices and research.
>
> These changes require a new way of discussing 'design' in 'art and design'
> and 'human-centered design' and a move away from earlier ways of thinking.
>
> The central issue is the limitations of human thinking, intuition and
> emotion for being able to design in complex situations.
> Designers are unable to understand the behaviour of designs complex
> situations with feedback loops. If designers cannot understand the
> behaviours of a designed outcome then they cannot design. This issue CANNOT
> be resolved by consulting with stakeholders, group design, participatory
> design, or any consultative tools. All these tools  do is convince people
> that they accept a faulty design.
>
> The problem is that many designers in 'art and design' and 'human-centered
> design' are now designing in areas of complexity in which conventional
> design practices, design theories  no longer apply (see
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2009/complex-ad.htm ). Of
> course, they still use traditional methods. The outcomes are faulty designs
> which from experience are then blamed on others  - or on God (wickedness).
> This is an increasing trend and an increasing problem that designers are
> imposing on the world with the moves into Design Strategy and Social
> Design.
>
> In parallel to this complexity problem is the epistemic shift in which
> classic social and psychological approaches to understanding group and
> individual sense-making and behaviour are being replaced wholemeal by
> information coming from new disciplines..
>
> As I see it, the significant  five changes that are happening to transform
> 'art and design' and 'human-centered design'  are:
>
> 1. Increasing tendency to address complex problems in 'art and design' and
> 'human-centered design' fields. This will make irrelevant all  current
> design methods based on 'feelings', 'intuition', 'design thinking',
> 'participative design', consultative design' and all classic social
> 'group-based' design methods from the 'art and design' and 'human-centered
> design' fields.
>
> 2. Replacement by new understandings from cognitive-neuroscience  in design
> theory and research of the current theory foundations of concepts of
> 'emotion' (as in 'design and emotion'),  'intuition', 'feelings' and
> 'meaning'. This is already happening in many other fields - design research
> is lagging.
>
> 3. Replacement of sociological, anthropological and ethnographic theories
> in
> design theory and research by new understandings from fields associated
> with
> ethology and evolutionary biology.
>
> 4. Massive increases in the mathematisation and computer-based automation
> of
> art, creativity and design of several orders greater than what we have seen
> in the last two decades.
>
> 5. Influence of media resulting in increased levels of directed personal
> automation of thinking and self-derivation of meaning. This will result in
> people's attitudes and ways of living increasingly aligned with their use
> of
> designed objects/situations, rather than designing outcomes to align with
> people's wants and understandings.
>
> Best regards,
> Terry
>