hah! so much for interface design conventions.
Usually a simple "reply" goes only to the sender and a "reply all" goes to
everyone. I forgot that when a message comes from a list, the sender is
the list, and to respond just to the individual person who wrote it, one
must do a reply all, and then deplete the list name from the "To" field.
--
So my private message to Terry went to everyone. Fortunately, it does no
harm, except perhaps to insult or anger some of you. So be it.
In fact, i see that Constanza has already built upon my comments in (to me)
a useful and constructive way.
Don
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> just to you, Terry
>
> Applause!
>
> Yes, that is precisely my concern and why i asked for examples of real
> curricula. it is amazing how many of the documents sent to me are actually
> only about the philosophy of the curriculum. I specifically said I wanted
> courses. as far as I can tell, designers (at least on PhD design) like to
> talk, argue, and be philosophical. Don't any of them do real things and
> teach real subjects?
>
> The HCI community as I stated and as you demonstrated puts real meat in
> their stuff. Hmm, HCI comes from engineering. Design comes from the arts.
>
>
> Don
>
> .
> Don Norman
> *Nielsen Norman Group
> *[log in to unmask] www.jnd.org
> http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
> Latest book: "Living with Complexity <http://www.jnd.org/books.html#608>"
> KAIST (Daejeon, S. Korea). IDEO Fellow.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> A couple of days ago, Andrew Jackson pointed to the UK Quality Assurance
>> Benchmark for undergraduate design education in the UK.
>>
>>
>> http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/statements/ADHA08.asp
>>
>> It's an interesting to read it with a critical eye about whether it
>> specifies the quality of performance of Design graduates.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some snippets:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Undergraduate Art and Design education in the UK is only for
>> creating *visual culture* (section 3), except it includes products as part
>> of that visual culture. Weird. For example, the chap down the road will be
>> using his bobcat (a designed product) to rearrange some house foundations
>> tomorrow. What matters is that the bobcat is designed so it can safely
>> move dirt - lots of dirt and very accurately and safely. I'm pretty sure
>> he
>> (or I) doesn't mind at all what the visual culture affects of the bobcat
>> are
>> compared to whether it will stay the right way up and move a lot of dirt
>> very accurately to level. Similarly, I'd expect designers of surgical
>> equipment to view them in other ways than as part of visual culture
>>
>> 2. As the core of the Quality Assurance, there are broad bush
>> definitions (sections 4 and 5) of subject-specific knowledge '.ability to
>> generate ideas.' 'employs convergent and divergent thinking.' etc; and
>> generic knowledge '..ability to study independently.'. 'formulate a
>> reasoned
>> response.' etc. Nowhere, however, in the document does it specify any
>> standards or specific competences or even levels of competence or skills
>> that can be assessed in terms of whether the person unarguably has got the
>> skills/knowledge or not;
>>
>> 3. The actual benchmark standards are in section 6. It is this
>> section
>> that one would expect to accurately define what a graduate is able to do
>> on
>> successful completion of the program (which would also define what is
>> taught
>> and how it is assessed). The information in this section, the benchmarks,
>> are as loose and unspecific as the earlier sections. For example
>> 'presents
>> evidence of an ability to generate ideas.', 'will be able to use
>> materials.
>> methods.. associated with the discipline studied and familiar with good
>> working practices.'
>>
>>
>>
>> Nowhere in this UK QAA quality assurance benchmark does it indicate the
>> standard, any standard, or specific level of skill or knowledge to be
>> expected of a Design graduate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mischievously, it's possible to take the words used in this QAA for Art
>> and
>> Design and ask 'Could a primary school program accord with the wording of
>> this honours degree Quality Assurance for a UK Design degree?' It might
>> be
>> possible. Certainly a secondary-school Design course might easily fulfil
>> this wording for UK Design degree quality assurance.
>>
>>
>>
>> Contrast the QAA Design degree spec with, for example, a specification of
>> what is expected of a Human Centred Design professional as described in
>> ISO
>> 134087
>> (
>> http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/upa_projects/body_of_knowledge/certif
>> ication_project/files/competence_v0.7.doc<http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/upa_projects/body_of_knowledge/certification_project/files/competence_v0.7.doc>)
>>
>>
>>
>> Am I missing something in expecting a design degree to specify the level
>> of
>> skills and knowledge that graduates will possess? Without it, it seems
>> that
>> there is no real basis for a claim for professional standards in Design.
>> Is
>> the UK's Art and Design university education really essentially only
>> interested in designing everything in terms of visual culture? If so,
>> where
>> is the UK Design education program that teaches people to design things
>> that work?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Terry
>>
>>
>>
>
|