Don et al:
I know I'm one of a myriad of design researchers and educators who
regularly utilizes a variety of approaches re: failure analysis as one
means to help graduate students (particularly during the earlier stages of
their studies) connect research processes and methods, and the theories
that inform and guide them, to actual practice. I've run several exercises
and longer assignments over the years with first- and second-year grad
students aimed at building knowledge and knowing about how to actually
learn from not only the analysis of "what isn't working and why," but to
also begin to get them to operationalize select theoretical approaches as
a means to better understand and explicate the affects of particular
design decisions not only on audiences and users, but on the contexts
(social, cultural, economic...) within which they evolve. I've borrowed
extensively from people like Petroski, Tonkinwise, Checkland and Frascara,
among others, to bolster my efforts.
It's easy to begin to criticize an effort like this based on issues Don
raised re: readability and legibility (which com design students are
supposed to at least learn about early on in their studies), but then you
can move on to discussing why it's probably a bad idea to construct a site
like this one using Flash, which triggers critical dialogues that can lead
to meaty discussions re: actor network theory and how it could be very
effectively used and has been used to frame criticism of an interactive
construct such as this.
About two thirds of our graduate candidates at the University of North
Texas enter our program with extensive professional experience in at least
one design discipline‹interaction design, communication design, interior
design, urban planning, architecture‹and many struggle initially with
"bridging the gap" between, to put it simply, theory and practice.
Engaging in discourse re: what causes the efforts of designers to fail, or
to be perceived as failures, or how what succeeds for a select group of
users fails for another, or how success or failure can each evolve from
the other in design, has proven to be a very useful and practical means to
inculcate new grad students into the worlds of design research.
Cheers,
Michael g
+ + + + + + + +
Michael R. Gibson
Graduate Programs Coordinator
Department of Design
The University of North Texas
College of Visual Arts and Design
On 10/27/11 10:22 AM, "Punya Mishra" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Don,
>
>I think you missed the gray flock of tiny flying birds meandering
>through the page? I think that more than makes up for the small font
>size...
>
>~ punya
>
>--------------------------------------
>Punya Mishra
>Web: http://punyamishra.com
>Blog: http://punya.educ.msu.edu/blog/
>
>
>
>Don Norman wrote:
>> Simon Sadler sent out a job announcement for UC Davis (California).
>> I've been advising another UC campus on design, but i didn't realize
>> Davis had a design department so i thought i would check out their web
>> page.
>>
>> http://design.ucdavis.edu/index.html
>>
>> Font Size: Font size. Font size. (Gee, you mean soe one is supposed
>> to read the words? Nah.)
>>
>> Wow: believe it or not Davis teaches communication design, but you
>> would never guess it from their website.
>>
>> why do graphics and communication designers love tiny, tiny type?
>> Especially communication designers, who one would have thought would
>> like their stuff to communicate. I have never seen such small type on
>> a website for the main message.
>>
>> There is one good side. Most graphical designers love to use gray
>> letters on a gray background, with small font. At least here we have
>> black on white. (Oh, another good side: maybe this can be my next
>> column for core77.)
>>
>> Moral: Never send anyone to study at UC Davis. That design department
>> doesn't get it.
>>
>> Don
>>
>> Don Norman
>> Nielsen Norman Group
>> KAIST (Daejeon, S. Korea), IDEO Fellow
>> (UC San Diego, emeritus)
>> [log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
>> Latest book: "Living with Complexity"
>>
>>
|