Hi Terry,
One of the joys of emerging from assessment hell is a chance to catch up on these discussions. I hope you won't mind me chipping in but I am fascinated by your proposed 1,2,3 hierarchy of design methods. I am not sure whether this is something you recommend for everyone or whether it is just a personal method of reassuring yourself of the pointlessness of 'creativity'. Looking at these three methods, I would have thought that designers in many fields of endeavor would have put them the other way round.
I am copying and pasting your 'league table' below, but with my alternative descriptions immediately following each one. I would greatly appreciate it if you could let me have your views/ tell me where I am going wrong:
1. Terry's version-
Straight 'competence' approaches. This is where I *know* the design
solutions. An example, I have 5 standard types of menu structure for website
designs, and identifying which one to use is dictated by the project type.
It doesn't need any guessing, I can immediately create the design. Lots of
design is now this way, particularly when design software has good solutions
built in.
1. Martin's version-
Straight 'competence' approaches- or as we say in the business- 'clip-art approaches'. I have a series of 'off the peg' designs from which I choose one and impose it on the problem/ client. I know the outcome before I start. Lots of design is now this way- it's not usually very good but it's cheap and quick and won't absorb too much of my energy.
-----
2. Terry's version-
'Solution Space analysis' approaches. I use problem and solution
characteristics and formal methods to map out the design solution space and
design outcome behaviours. Some meta-analysis helps identify best solution
regions or instances.
2. Martin's version-
Martin doesn't fully understand the language here but he thinks it translates as, 'I use tried and trusted mechanical methods. This should do the job OK without stretching me too much'.
--------
3. Terry's version-
'Messy-guessy' design approaches. I use this bunch of design methods
of association for idea generation (e.g. brainstorming, ideas on the wall,
idea clustering, anthropomorpherizing) to informally and quickly identify
design solutions with some kind of way of choosing between them.
3. Martin's version-
I have to use my brain and think outside the box with this one. This can be a bit scary and it will certainly take much longer than options 1 and 2 (and consequently be more expensive) but is more likely to lead to a solution that is fresh, full of personality and perhaps even innovative. I will only be able to do this if I have plenty of energy.
------
Best wishes on a damp Jubilee Sunday,
Martin
Professor Martin Salisbury
Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration
Director, The Centre for Children's Book Studies
Cambridge School of Art
0845 196 2351
[log in to unmask]
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Terence Love [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 2:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Another part of theory of usability
Hi Gunnar,
Thanks for your message. You might be right about the 'fall back onto'. It
wasn't something I thought about clearly as I was writing it. I can see that
anthropomorphism has several useful roles in design activity and use it
myself. What follows seems like a conversation we've had before - though
maybe it was just in my head!
When designing, I've a particular interest in ways of identifying best
solutions and mainly use three design approaches:
1. Straight 'competence' approaches. This is where I *know* the design
solutions. An example, I have 5 standard types of menu structure for website
designs, and identifying which one to use is dictated by the project type.
It doesn't need any guessing, I can immediately create the design. Lots of
design is now this way, particularly when design software has good solutions
built in.
2. 'Solution Space analysis' approaches. I use problem and solution
characteristics and formal methods to map out the design solution space and
design outcome behaviours. Some meta-analysis helps identify best solution
regions or instances.
3. 'Messy-guessy' design approaches. I use this bunch of design methods
of association for idea generation (e.g. brainstorming, ideas on the wall,
idea clustering, anthropomorpherizing) to informally and quickly identify
design solutions with some kind of way of choosing between them.
If I know what I'm doing, 'approach 1' is pretty well all that's needed.
'Approach 2' usually provides the deepest insights and enables going beyond
human individual and group creativity and thinking. It also works on wicked
problems.
When I can't immediately identify the best design from competence and I need
design solutions fast and they don't have to be the best, or I'm feeling
short on energy or want to do something that's a bit more entertaining and
feel good, I use the 'messy-guessy' associative methods including
anthropomorphism. The associations are not valid in the formal sense. Their
value is helping me push my brain into thinking up stuff that I might not
otherwise have thought of while keeping me happy and feeling that I'm doing
something useful!
For me, there is a sort of hierarchy 1->3. Having design competence and
knowing the best solution straight out is great but not often possible.
Solutions space analysis is effective but hard work and takes a lot of time
and resources. Anthropomorphism and other associative methods allows me the
fun of muttering to myself all sorts of personal experience stuff and
banging out ideas without much effort. It's enjoyable fast and effective and
creates lots of possible designs, but doesn't mean the designs are
necessarily any good or the best, and it does mean hiding behind the
'creativity' banner to justify them!
That seems to be why I see using anthropomorphism as a 'fall-back' from
other design methods - it's part of what I use when I don't use the other
two approaches.
Is that pejorative? Not sure - seems better to be light-hearted about it.
They all do what they do.
Warm regards,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gunnar
Swanson
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2012 10:56 PM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Another part of theory of usability
<snip> I agree with the last statement but there seems to be a pejorative
edge to "anthropomorphic" here. (Maybe I'm just reading into it but "fall
back onto" sounded dismissive.) I wouldn't assume that anthropomorphizing is
always invalid for designers or users.
Gunnar
y
--
Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service -
www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems
--
EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008,
more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally
Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated
'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design;
English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies;
History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy &
Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information.
This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named
recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in
error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show
them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and
then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions
expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although
measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are
free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing
practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.
Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which
may not be a 100% secure communications
Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email
management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems
|