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
|