Hi Terence,
Not only living metaphors, but also dead metaphors play a role in
design. On the one hand, there are active uses of metaphor in design
(what if we see this as a desktop?), and use of metaphor to aid
interpretation by users (this thing is a lot like a desktop so
probably...). One the other hand, there are the dead metaphors that
runs through methods and theories of design (this theory talks about
design is if it were....).

A dead metaphor is something that we no longer view as a metaphor. In
design, dead metaphors runs through methods and tools. "Dead
metaphors" implies a history of active use as a living metaphor. I
mentioned examples of that previosly, of design in accident
investigation. They were alive during design of design methors.
Examples were "Swiss cheeze", "Domino blocks", "Resonance". These were
explicitly described by designers of methods, and are now buried in
the methods per se. Sometimes, they are also used to explain the
methods, as living metaphors.

Can we trace these dead metaphors buried in methods, in talk about
methods by practitioners, and in their descriptions of work practices?
I argue that we can, as described in my article
"what-you-find-is-what-you-fix". No longer being actively used, the
dead metaphors nevertheless affect design. (In the article, I mainly
refer to this as implicit assuptions in methods, instead of
"metaphor") This article discusses theories based on the "resonance",
"cheeze" and "domino bricks" mentioned above, from Lundberg et.al
(2009).

We sometimes can't trace whether a metaphor was used or not, during
the design of methods. Instead of "dead metaphors" it's therefore been
called "desingn perspectives" (Hult. et. al. 2006). We might no longer
be able to observe the living use of metaphor embedding it in theories
and methos. But we can nevertheless se similarities between what's
been talked about in design theories, and observe influences in
designs, that remind us of specific metaphors. These influential dead
metaphors runs through design theories. Simliar conecpts are for
instance "placements". I have disucssed that in the article "Design
perspecitives"(Hult et. al. 2006), and other authors have discussed it
as well in their works. (For instance, tool perspecitive, architecture
perspective, media perspecitive). They arguably affect design thinking
in a profound way. How does theory talk about users, artefacts,
activities, context, and communication? what qualities-in-use are
valued and what relations are seen as central?) Does theory talk about
people as tool users? Or as media users?

Example of a view of an "user" from a "media" perspective:
"The users are individuals or groups of consumers who are seen as a
part of an au- dience. The producers are also seen as users. The
consumer (user) is one part of a dialectic sys- tem of consumer and
producer. The consumer (user) is a role in the media production and is
gen- erally characterized as habitual and with a social identity but
also individual characteristics. The users can be viewed as
individuals, groups, stakeholders or roles belonging to an
organization. Even society can be viewed as a user. For both providers
and end-users the use may be driven by the prospect of economic gain."
(Hult, et. al, 2006. p15)

Example of a view of an "user" from a "tool" perspective:
"The users are seen as competent, purposeful and rationally acting
humans. Focus is generally on the single user rather than the
workgroup or organization. The non-user is not at- tended to since the
primary user is heavily in focus." (Hult, et. al, 2006. p 12)

So, there is (arguably) more to metaphor in design than the active use
for creativity and interpretation.

Lundberg et al. What-You-Look-For-Is-What-You-Find - The consequences
of underlying accident models in eight accident investigation manuals.
Safety Science (2009) vol. 47 (10) pp. 1297-1311

Hult et al. Design perspectives. Human-Computer Interaction (2006)
vol. 21 (1) pp. 5-48

Best regards
Jonas Lundberg

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Jonas,
>
> Thank you for your message. Yes you are right, I'm being deliberately
> specific about how the use of metaphor is theorised about in design. It's an
> attempt to avoid contributing to the confused and badly thought through
> theory  associated with much of design literature over the last 50 years.
>
> The following are ideas I've developed since the 90s. I claim authorship.
> Please reference them to me if you use them. If you know of others who have
> put forward the same ideas it would be great to know!
>
> 1. A four-fold taxonomy of influences on how designers and users are
> involved in design and the creation and use of designs is:
>
>  a) Logic: influences that involve rational relationships, understandings
> and explanations both explicit and implicit to the design process, designed
> outcome and interpretations and reflections by designers and users
>
>  b) Casuistic: influences that explicitly or implicitly understandings of
> the design process, designed outcome and interpretations and reflections by
> designers and users by referencing privileged ideas, objects, sources,
> texts, persons etc
>
>  c) Deictic: influences that are simple direct and explicit and require no
> interpretation or translation
>
>  d) Rhetoric: influences typically  intended to persuade that a situation is
> other than would be inferred solely in terms of logic, casuistic or deictic
> interpretation. Metaphor is part of this category
>
> 2.  There are four main ways metaphor is involved in design activity:
>
>  a) 'In the design process as a tool' in which the design team deliberately
> creates metaphoric alternatives during the design process to raise an
> increased number of potential solution ideas. Examples include imagining a
> tube containing blood as a tube of toothpaste (metaphor)  and this leads to
> the idea of a peristaltic pump to move blood as an artificial heart, or
> thinking of fluid as if it were champagne and this leads to the idea of
> bubble pumps.
>
>  b) 'In the mind of the designer' - much the same as a) with the addition
> that you can look at some affective neuro-cognitive tricks that will
> increase idea generation in the subconscious of an individual.
>
>  c) Intentional use of metaphor 'in the designed outcome itself'  to evoke
> conscious and subconscious thoughts and emotions and activity motivators.
>
>  d) Independently of designers intended metaphors, by the user or potential
> user in attempting to more efficiently understand a complex phenomena such
> as an interface.
>
>
> Of these, the combination of 1d/2c is most typical of discussions about the
> use of metaphor in design. From observation, it is the primary method only,
> however, in  a relatively small proportion of designers, mainly in graphic
> design, advertising and branding. Although found in UX , my observation,
> your mileage may differ, is that it is a relatively small part of the design
> activity.
>
> At this stage, I'm suspecting that the prevalence of metaphor in design
> education is more to do with historic background of school and college
> education of Art and Design staff. The way metaphor is taught in design
> unusually tightly echoes its use in English language studies. Added to this,
> there is  a self reinforcing effect of a training in metaphor, that
> everything is metaphorically seen as a metaphor. This is a problem in all
> areas of design. Most of the time, however, however a cigar is just a cigar
> (deictic) says Freud (casuistic) or can be inferred from its construction,
> material and use (logic).
>
> Best regards,
> Terry