Dear Don and All,
Thinking about the role of design representation as a tool for though and action in design practice, some on the list may be interested in my short ramblings on the subject:
http://www.core77.com/blog/education/cad_versus_sketching_why_ask_by_james_self_21844.asp
Unfortunately, the article does not provide any of the answers to understand the 'why sketch?' question - or as I would prefer to say, 'why embody design intentions as sketches, drawings, models and prototypes?'. I do take the position that 'a tool is only a tool in-so-far as it is used as such to achieve a perceived purpose (by the tool-user aka designer)'. Understanding the relationship between purpose or 'Design Thinking' and the manipulation of designerly tools - such as (but not limited to) sketching might work as a means to explore their significance for design - thinking and activity.
Best,
James.
Assistant Professor | School of Design & Human Engineering (DHE) |
Ulsan National Institute of Science & Technology (UNIST) | S.Korea
T. +82 (0)52 217 2722 | F. +82 (0)52 217 2722 | Email. [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:13:24 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Design Thinkers
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Just a short note to thank the several of you on this list (among others)
> who have commented on my "Rethinking Design Thinking" article.
>
> Thanks, Elizabeth, for the pointer to Lucy's article entitled, hmm,
> "Rethinking Design Thinking," an article i am sorry to say, I had not known
> about. It certainly would have been helpful to me had I read it before i
> wrote my own article.
>
> And thanks, Erik, for your comments. You say "I have one problem with
> Norman's new position though." Really? Only one? Hell, I can list several
> other problems that I have (and I suspect you do too.)
>
> I agree with your critique. In writing my piece I hesitated a lot before
> trying to describe what I thought design thinking was because not only did
> my brief introduction leave out a lot that I thought to be critical, but i
> also knew that many good design thinkers would not agree with my
> overly-specific definition (and that i would probably agree with their
> disagreement). I was also concerned that my quotation from Moggridge
> would cause some to believe I was an IDEO partisan who did not admit to any
> other possible approach to design. Not true: I quoted Bill because I
> thought the quote appropriate, and also as a small tribute to his
> contributions to the practice. Still, in the end, i thought that the
> diverse readership would require some definition.
>
> I also agree that design thinking is really a framework or point of view
> that inspires critical analysis of the problem and its possible solutions.
>
> On a side note, I have long struggled to understand the roles that
> thinking, knowing, representing (via words, sketches, and models), and
> doing have on the creative process. I'm contemplating a short essay for
> this list on drawing and sketching, one that does not propose answers but
> rather lists some of the questions that need answering. Drawing is a much
> under-appreciateds tool for thought. Or perhaps, drawing is a mode of
> thought.
>
> Don
> www.jnd.org
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|