Dear Lubomir,
Being a trained architect and having practised architecture for many years I would like to point out that architectural design has its own methods of analysis of a given design setting which are somewhat different than the methods of analysis prevalent in scientific fields.
Architects usually employ two distinct methods, carried out more of less simultaneously, to understand and analyse any given design setting (Heylighen, 2000).
The first method of analysis, akin to the methods of analysis employed in scientific fields, allows architects to collect basic information, in form of drawings (of the given design settings), photographs etc. about the given design setting.
Using the second method of analysis architects develop projections/design solutions (i.e. action) in order to carry out further and deeper analyse the design setting in question. Contrary to the claims made by some of the contributors to this thread re the practise of action before analysis apparently prevalent within traditional design fields, such projections/design solutions are informed by at least a minimal understanding of the given design setting.
Architects use such projections/design solutions as ‘tools’ as critique of such projections/design solutions vis a vis the given design setting allows architects to gain richer insight into the nature of the given design setting.
I would also like to add that while the model of human problem solving, i.e. analysis-synthesis-evaluation works well in some design disciplines it can not be effectively applied to solve problems faced by designers in a number of design disciplines.
For example, within the field of interaction design, it is difficult, if not impossible, to analyse a design setting to design interactive artefact(s) to be used by people within their everyday activity settings. This is because, unlike other more traditional design fields, the potential users of such interactive artefacts know very little, if at all, about their functional, form related and use related aspects. Therefore, in this case, there is little to gain from analysis of the design setting before design, even though the current practise of interaction design suggests otherwise. This, of course, does not mean that analysis of the given design setting is not required but that we need better methods of analysis than currently is the case.
I have made an attempt to discuss architectural method of analysis (although not in great detail) and its application for bringing an interactive artefact into being in my doctoral thesis and I will be happy to share it with you and anyone else if it interests them.
Warm regards,
Parag
…………………………………………………………………..
Heylighen A. (2000) In case of architectural design, KU Leuven, 12-13.
|