THank you, Lars. but I am not convinced that your great example is so great.
Lars said, in brief:
-----
I am very pleased with a current exhibition at MOMA: "Small Scale, Big
Change". Not the physical exhibition (I haven't been there) but the web
version. It is not primarily the topic of the exhibition, but the
organization the web exhibition. It is mix of medias and perspectives that
offers rich views of the process, the stakeholders and key issues. I find
this perhaps the best example of learning material in co-design.
It also is a great example of new media in education. A printed version of
the web site would lose several key qualities, as the ability explore from
different perspectives in a situated order and, of course, the videos.
(The Quinta Monroy Housing may serve as a good specimen).
http://moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2010/smallscalebigchange/
-----
I disagree completely. I see no evidence that would be useful in the
teaching of design.
The website is indeed interesting. But it doesn't tell me the thought
processes behind the exhibit. it doesn't tell me how or why these examples
were selected, nor does it tell me why the museum exhibit or the website was
designed in the way that it is, nor even what they expected the viewer to
learn or experience. In other words, these materials are NOT about the
design. I do not see how i can use it to help train designers.
For educational purposes, we should be told the goals, the design research,
the process, and then how the end results were evaluated to see if they had
met their goals -- which were satisfied, which were not, and what lessons
were learned.
It is also interesting to me -- and telling -- that although the website
gives credits to a multi-disciplinary team
http://moma.org/interactive/exhibitions/2010/smallscalebigchange/credits.html
(without spelling out the design goals, methods, or validations of the
website process), the exhibit itself only credits two people: the curators
(see above URL).
It boggles the mind to believe that it only took two people to do the
exhibit but it took 25 to do the website. So I don;t even find the credits
informative.
Is the exhibit interesting? Is the website informative? Yes. But not for the
purposes Lars writes about. I could not use these as examples to train
designers. And what about the individual projects on display? Same
critique. We are told they are wonderful examples of successful,
multi-disciplinary projects with no proof. No assessment (some are
student projects that in fat were never implemented, so who knows?). I take
these as more exhibits for my argument that design is mostly claims without
substance.
I have hopes in the blogs:
http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/category/small-scale-big-change
Hopes so far unrealized.
Sorry folks.
Don
(And Lars, as you undoubtedly know, Global warming, as it
is unfortunately called, means huge climate shifts, including increased
variability and colder weather and longer storms with increased snowfall in
regions of the earth, especially as polar snows melt, reducing reflectivity
of the sun's rays, and changing the Gulf Stream.)
Don Norman
Nielsen Norman Group
KAIST (Daejeon, S. Korea)
[log in to unmask] www.jnd.org
http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
Latest book: "Living with
Complexity"<http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/living_with_complexity.html>
|