Hi Terry,
As ever, your procrustean approach to definition cuts out too much of value and fails to include other things of great value.
Consider the following:
> The purpose of any design activity is to create a design - a set of
> instructions to make or do something. This is the difference between design
> activity and art activity.
Not so. What is a play, a script, a piece of choreography but a set of instructions for doing something?
> the purpose of all design research
> is focused around improving this ability to predict the behavioural outcomes
> that result from any design being implemented.
Not so. Design research, such as my own, into the philosophy of design is not necessarily about improving outcomes, nor is critical research of the kind done by Victor Margolin.
There is a vast area of human activity which falls outside the category of things that are potentially predictable, and are more properly located in a category of things which are none-predictable. Attempts at prediction in these areas is not possible. BTW, this is true of many natural systems in which knowing all the starting conditions cannot be used to predict outcomes. The swing of a pendulum under two forces is a simple example.
Having said all of the above, I would agree with your project to improve predictability where this is possible. I also incline to your view that creativity has been overvalued. Indeed I would argue that some aspects of creativity in design are unsustainable. But that is another thread altogether.
From a wintery and wet Melbourne,
Warm Regards,
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
Skype: davidsless
|