Klaus et all, see embedded comments.
Cheers.
Fil
2009/10/10 Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
> fil,
>
> briefly,
>
> i agree that the boundaries between the inside functioning of and the human
> interface with an artifact are not always sharp. in the design of scissors
> you deal with both, but in the design of a computer there is a clear
> division of labor. interface designers do not need to know how bits are
> stored and changed, and the designers of a microchip have very little
> interest or place for how the icons look. my suggestion is that
> human-centered designers declare an area of competence as their own and
> become so proficient as to be indispensible in the design of technology
> generally.
>
I can see that it makes pragmatic sense to do this, given how "things are"
these days. I would just urge that we do what we can to distinguish between
the competencies of different kinds of designers - which might reasonably be
expected to facilitate practise, research, and learning - and the use of the
boundaries implied by the creation of those competencies to partition up
aspects of actual products and services that are artifacts of design
processes. The latter of which I really strongly believe is a "bad thing."
This happens in engineering and outside it too. An engineering example: a
modern car is very clearly a "mechatronic device" in that it is really a
complete blend of electronic, electric, and mechanical elements. However,
cars are still developed as if the mechanical and electrical/electronic
systems were entirely separate things. This artificial separation really
hurts car development.
My concern is that promoting a distinction between human-centred and
technically-centred designers creates a similar separation that will be
similarly disadvantageous.
> i hope this also sheds some light on the second sentence you are not happy
> with. i suggest: if designers know a little bit of everything, as
> comfortable or useful this might be, and nothing deeper that what other
> disciplines have to offer, there is no special competence that designers can
> do research in, develop methods for, and offer to their clients, then they
> can easily be replaced by those who know can offer slightly more bits of
> knowledge of everything.
>
You missed my point. The special competence that a generalist has is in
looking outside a given specialization. I, for example, have a certain
familiarity with formal logic that virtually NONE of my researcher
colleagues have. While it's a very tough row to hoe, I have been working on
formal models of designerly activities that are descriptive (not
prescriptive) and allow a kind of structured reasoning that is just not
available elsewise. Whether there's any /benefit/ to my work for
practitioners or the world at large remains to be seen. Breadth at the
expense of depth can lead to innovation. All I'm saying is that generalists
see things differently, and we need both specialists and generalists to "see
it all."
Cheers.
Fil
> 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 Filippo
> A. Salustri
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 1:10 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?
>
> Klaus, sorry I've been so long in replying, but my teaching schedule is
> crazy this semester.
>
> Your post (below) is quite clear. I understand what you mean, and I agree
> with it, insofar as it describes a common conception in design practise
> (engineering and otherwise). However, when you write:
>
> > ask some engineers whether their design process is driven by
> > the conceptions that potential users may bring to their design or from
> the
> > conceptions of the logic of the mechanism they envision. i think
> engineers
> > would prefer the latter.
> >
>
> I think you are only partially correct.
> Yes, there are at least some engineers that think this way. Maybe even the
> majority of engineers.
> But I also know this is changing. I meet them all the time, engineers who
> have realized that a truly great design gets design must account for both
> the technical and the human aspects. And the education system is pushing
> all the time towards better balance between human needs and technical
> requirements. This takes a lot of time; you can't throw a switch and
> suddenly change a whole engineering faculty into human-centred anythings.
> But it is changing.
>
> Which brings me to my main point: in a well-designed product, the
> engineering and human aspects vanish - there is only the product. I
> believe
> the distinction between the human and technical aspects /of the product/
> are
> entirely artificial. While I can appreciate that the engineering designer
> and the non-engineering designer might do different kinds of designing,
> it's
> that way, I think, because we haven't figured out how to train single
> individuals to do both. There is also a matter of complexity, that a
> single
> person would have much more difficulty addressing. However, I also think
> that the distinction is "breaking" some of the interfacing links between
> engineering and non-engineering design.
>
> And I personally set as an ideal, to work toward a way of thinking,
> researching, and practising design that does not require those kinds of
> distinctions.
>
> Lastly, I worry about your statement:
>
> > designers who know a little bit
> > of everything, none too deeply, are universal charlatans.
> >
>
> I call such people "generalists" and I include myself among them. The
> generalist serves a very important function: he pulls together bits
> knowledge, integrates them, for widely diverse fields to create new ideas
> that specialists, with their deep but narrow expertise, could not ever come
> up with. So I'm not really sure I agree with you at all on this point.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
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/
|
