Hello Ranjan -
Stanford teaches HCI primarily to non-design students with few
visualization skills. (When I TAed the interaction design studio, it was
mostly Computer Science, Education, and Engineering students.) We taught
very simple drawings to augment vocal storytelling in real-time -- quick to
draw "star people" and sketched comic-panel storyboards. Scott Klemmer's
HCI course on Coursera demonstrates this kind of easily taught drawing
around 2 minutes 38 seconds:
https://class.coursera.org/hci-2012-002/lecture/21
It is based on Bill Verplank's very simple and quick drawing style, such
as:
http://goo.gl/oJk19D
These drawings are nothing compared to what I've seen NID students produce
in the design concepts and concerns courses you taught, but they are a
tremendous improvement over just talking or writing words and start to get
students thinking in terms of depicting worlds and systems.
Lilly
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi MP,
>
> What kind of visualisation are you envisaging?
>
> Mostly, I've found that organisational planning issues are so complex
> that they require symbolic visualisation. Understanding or predicting the
> *dynamics* of the outcomes of any intervention (such as national change to
> design education in India) involves predicting the ways things will change
> over time in a highly interacting political environment. This can often
> only be achieved by dynamic modelling and then watching the outcomes of
> the modeller play out to see what is likely to happen at different times.
> Some non-designers may be better skilled in these areas of visualisation
> than design students?
>
> Best wishes ,
> Terry
>
> ---
> Dr Terence Love
> PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE
> Director,
> Love Services Pty Ltd
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
> Western Australia 6030
> Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
> [log in to unmask]
> --
>
>
>
> -----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 Prof M
> P Ranjan
> Sent: Friday, 16 August 2013 12:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: design thinkers
>
> Dear GK
>
> Wonderful post that brings a lot of clarity and it echoes many of my own
> experiences with big transformational design action that w have attempted
> here in India, very political and in some cases with a lot of conflict.
> Perhaps that is why w have been advocating humility as a desirable quality
> for design students and designers as well.
>
> I am meeting the Academic Council of the Ahmedabad University today and
> hopefully our new course on Design Thinking for non design students will be
> approved today. The brief outline is available on my Academia,edu archive
> if anyone is interested. My real question is how can we introduce
> visualisation to non design students who do not have skills in drawing? Are
> there any references that you can share or experiences of such actions as I
> find this a real challenge as we go forward. Modelling and visualisation re
> such an integral part of my courses in design thinking and this is a first
> time for me to focus on non design students from commerce, management and
> the sciences and humnities etc.
>
> My suggested references for the course participants include John Heskett,
> John Thackara, Jon Kolko, Roger Martin, Kees Dorst and Bryan Lawson since
> their texts are very accessible. Any other suggestions?
>
> With warm regards
>
> M P Ranjan
> From my iPad at home
> 16 August 2013 at 10.05 am IST
>
> Prof M P Ranjan
> Independent Academic, Ahmedabad
> Author of blog : http://www.designforindia.com Archive of papers :
> http://cept.academia.edu/RanjanMP Sent from my iPad
>
> On 16-Aug-2013, at 2:47 AM, GK VanPatter | NextD <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ken & all: I am delighted to support your side-door suggestion that when
> it comes to this design thinking thing new viewing lenses are useful and
> needed.
> >
> > Your post reminded me of something that Richard Wurman used to say often
> when we worked with him years ago, well he probably still says it…”the
> reorganizing of information creates new information.” Some might say new
> insights. Richard typically would go on to talk about the vast amount of
> incoming information [the tsunami] and the relative few ways in which it
> can be organized, LATCH. Over the years Richard and many others have done a
> lot of work to make those relatively simple ordering system ways more
> publically known. We still teach LATCH in our workshops.
> >
> > What Richard does not say, does not trouble himself with and what your
> post reminded me of is that some of those reordered depictions might in
> some contexts be more palatable, more politically acceptable than others.
> We might even suggest that depictions of various sorts could be placed on a
> sliding scale from very politically correct/acceptable to very politically
> incorrect/unacceptable depending on the lens, the audience and or even the
> lens-maker.
> >
> > In his 1989 book; Information Anxiety, Richard was of course talking
> about dogs, how to view them, reorganize them, understand them from various
> perspectives. Organizing them by size, by breed, etc. the dogs did not
> change but the viewer’s perception of them likely did. As far as we know
> dogs are not too concerned with the politics of pictures. Not so true of
> humans.
> >
> > In your post you are referring to design thinker humans but it seems to
> me that the premise of ordering systems or lenses, some well-worn, others
> not so, remains the same. In our corner of the sense-making business we
> inevitably construct many viewing lenses.
> >
> > With this in mind I would build on your observation and suggest an even
> wider set of possibilities for renewed viewing in addition to just the
> consideration of generation when it comes to making more sense of design
> thinking and design thinkers inclusive of the literature that they create.
> >
> > Of course it seems likely that some in the audience might view your
> suggested generational lens and the pictures that it brings into view to be
> on the politically correct/acceptable side of the scale while for others
> the same pictures would swing towards the opposite, unacceptable direction.
> >
> > Magic-generation advocates might prefer the existing more fuzzy
> undifferentiated picture as it might better serve their interests. Others
> might prefer the generational lens picture for the same reasons. Some might
> even pull out all the stops to suggest that the generation viewing lens is
> imperfect, flawed and should therefore not be taken seriously. Some might
> suggest that you have no business suggesting such a lens until you have
> documented each and every occupant of the picture to ensure relevance. Some
> might suggest that you are the wrong person to bring such a lens into view
> and into practice, or that they have other lens creators and lenses in mind
> that better serve their interests. Such are the politics of sense-making,
> lens making, picture making. So be it.
> >
> > I share this because we know from our NextD experience that introducing
> alternative viewing lenses on this subject can be incredibly constructive
> in intent and taken as incredibly disruptive by some within the picture.
> The same ordering lens can be viewed by some as not only perfectly
> acceptable, but extremely necessary, while others find it to be threatening
> to the current state perceptions in which they and their institutions, are
> significantly invested.
> >
> > As in the dog reordering exercise, the design thinkers inside the system
> do not change but the perception of them and the system do change depending
> on which lens is being utilized. Perception of what exists and does not
> exist within the system might also change. For example: One lens might
> indicate that hundreds or thousands of literature documents exist while a
> different lens might suggest that the vast percentage of existing docs are
> oriented in a particular subdirection. Historical and present heroes might
> look quite different depending on which lens is being used. Not everyone is
> going to be happy with all of what is learned from new lens pictures. So be
> it.
> >
> > In our business we know full well that making some things more
> understandable is not always welcomed with open arms. Politics can be
> debilitating. Politics can block and slow forward motion for decades. Many
> fuzzy pictures exist for a reason. Ah, for the innocence of dogs!
> >
> > Certainly from our perspective the present and emerging states of design
> thinking can be and should be viewed through multiple viewing lenses, not
> just the old lenses in which design education has vast invested interests.
> Lets put a few outsider lenses on the table and see what can be seen.
> Surely most would want this viewing to be part of a newer design way.
> >
> > Yes Ken, in this instance, I am totally on board with your suggestion.
> >
> > In addition I am always happy to connect with others working on lens
> research and lens creation.
> >
> > Have a good weekend all.
> >
> > GK.
> >
> > Related:
> >
> > ReAppreciating Richard Saul Wurman
> >
> > http://www.humantific.com/starving-for-understanding/
> >
> >
> > When [Old Design Thinking] Love is Not Enough
> >
> > http://issuu.com/nextd/docs/whenolddesignthinkingloveisnotenough
> >
> >
> > Occupy ReImagining Design (On academia.edu)
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/qjtfhff
> > ...
> >
> > GK VanPatter
> > Co-Founder
> >
> > Humantific
> > SenseMaking for ChangeMaking
> >
> > NEW YORK / MADRID
> >
> > 6 West 18th Street, 9th Floor
> > New York City, NY 10011
> > T: 212-660-2577
> >
> > http://www.humantific.com
> >
> > NEWSLETTER:
> > Subscribe to Humantific Quarterly
> >
> > Follow Humantific on twitter: http://twitter.com/humantific
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 12, 2013, at 2:09 AM, Ken Friedman wrote:
> >
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> The name on Victor's list and some of the other lists are mostly people
> in their 60s and 70s.
> >>
> >> There are thinkers younger thinkers whose original contributions have
> grown to the point that an analysis is in order. Examples of design
> thinkers with a rich enough body of original work to warrant major
> treatment include Lucy Kimbell, Kees Dorst, Liz Sanders, Pieter Paul
> Verbeek, Pieter Vermaas, Ilpo Koskinen, Erik Stolterman, Sabine Junginger,
> … the list could go on.
> >>
> >> It seems to me that Victor is saying that we do not take our field
> seriously enough to read each other or to comment on it. For that matter,
> the great majority of references to serious thinkers take the form of
> casual notes suggesting that "Norman (2009)" addresses a topic at some
> unspecified point in a book or "Sanders (2005)" agrees with whoever has
> written an article without saying what she agrees on or showing how she
> agrees, whether this is comprehensive agreement, or whether there are
> distinctions to be drawn. For a literature review I am now doing, I get the
> sense that some 80% or 90% of the authors who refer to one article have not
> bothered to read it — they seem to like the title, or they've heard about
> the article from colleagues, or they simply assume that the cited author
> supports their views.
> >>
> >> As Victor writes, "What is missing from … design theory is a body of
> work that studies in depth the work of past theorists. What often occurs is
> that there is a quest for new universal theories that have no relation to
> the work that others have done before to consider the same subject. In
> fields like sociology or anthropology or psychology, the extended writings
> of the grand theorists have been studied and researchers in the field have
> come to some understanding of how those theorists approached the challenge
> of theorizing their field. Thus, new theorists have contended with those
> who came before them as part of the process of moving their own ideas
> forward.
> >>
> >> "We lack such a tradition in design research, in large part because
> there have been hardly studies of the extended work of the best thinkers in
> the field."
> >>
> >> If you have never written a proper literature review outside the review
> chapter of your own thesis, I encourage you to read Jane Webster and
> Richard Watson's (2002) article, “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the
> Future: Writing a Literature Review.” I hope it will inspire more people in
> our field to do this kind of work.
> >>
> >> You will find the Webster and Watson article at this URL:
> >>
> >> http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
> >>
> >> Click on the section for “Teaching Documents.” The article is at the
> bottom of the section.
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >>
> >> Ken
> >>
> >> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
> >> Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
> >> | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile
> >> +61 404 830 462 | Home Page
> >> http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22
> >> .html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page
> >> http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page
> >> http://about.me/ken_friedman
> >>
> >> Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji
> >> University | Shanghai, China
> >>
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Lilly Irani
University of California, Irvine
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~lirani/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|