Dear Terry,
We disagree on the meaning and importance of your Guidelines for Design Thinking (Love 2010), we disagree on the you state that equate quantified symbolic representation with design thinking. You are making empirical claims about a state of affairs in the world of human interaction. The behavior of real human beings does not match your claims.
Short version (851 words):
(1) Terry Love (2014b, below) wrote: “If you use a graphic design program then the solutions you create and the way you think using the programs are determined by these principles embedded in the way the software works.”
(1) People who practice graphic design for human beings might disagree, as might those who practice communication design, information design, or book design for human beings. Your statement reveals an ignorance of design practice in these fields. You do not seem to be familiar with how professionals in graphic design, communication design, information design, or book design develop solutions. Designers use computers along with other tools and methods. Other methods are central to the creative early stages of the design process. Once the creative solution is under way, junior designers use computers to iterate drafts on instruction from senior designers. These drafts are comparable to the typeset proof sheets that would have gone back and forth between a designer and a mechanical in earlier times.
(2) Terry Love (2014b, below) wrote: “the way you think using the programs [is] determined by these principles embedded in the way the software works.”
(2) This is a highly questionable statement in philosophical and psychological terms.
(3) Terry Love (2014b, below) wrote: “the principles I listed [in Love 2010] are also, if you think about it, the foundation of most of the design theories and conventions taught in design schools such as Swinburne.”
(3) In many posts, you write that designers do NOT use these principles. This is the opposite of what you write here. In your guidelines (Love 2010), you argue that designers should use high-level mathematics in a rigorous way, quantizing design problems and design solutions in mathematical language. This is similar to your recent assertion on this list. Your argued that designers require a capacity for “mastering abstraction and meta-abstraction along with predicting dynamic behaviors in multi-dimensional spaces, going beyond linear four-dimensional understanding of the world, understanding and using limits and disjoints, moving between discrete and continuous, combinatorics and design theory (different from what is known as design theory in the design industry), understanding the calculus of change and feedback, and moving between set and metrological mapping of concepts” (Love 2014).
In post after post, you argue that designers SHOULD develop these skills, and you claim that they do NOT possess or use these skills now.
While I disagree with the assertion that all designers require these skills, it cannot BOTH be true that (a) designers do not follow the principles you advocate in your guidelines (Love 2010), AND (b) these principles are “the foundation of most of the design theories and conventions taught in design schools such as Swinburne.”
My observation is that few designers use the principles in your guidelines. While your criticism is misplaced, the assertion that designers lack the mathematical skills required to follow these highly quantitative principles is true.
Therefore, it is logically false that these principles are “the foundation of most of the design theories and conventions taught in design schools such as Swinburne.”
More than logic is involved here. Empirical observation at several hundred design schools indicates that this proposition is false. After seven years as a dean and professor at Swinburne, I can assure you that this proposition is false at Swinburne.
Few of our staff and nearly none of our students possess the mathematical skill to use your guidelines. Those with sufficient mathematical skill to do so are professors with a background in experimental psychology and computer science. They use their mathematical skills in other ways than you propose.
(4) Terry Love (2014b, below) wrote: “you will find the principles I listed apply just as powerfully to the principles espoused by the current populist version of design thinking.”
(4) This is incorrect. First, this is not a “populist” position. The sources of my comments are five or six hundred articles in peer-reviewed journals along with professional reports. By definition, this is not “populist.”
The methods in the peer-reviewed literature involve working in interdisciplinary teams, working with stakeholders, and using frequent and rapid iterative prototypes or mapping exercises. These methods do not involve quantified symbolic representation or mathematical modeling.
No one in this large, peer-reviewed literature uses your methods. Empirical evidence suggests that skilled use of the design thinking principles of (1) interdisciplinary teams, (2) working with stakeholders, and (3) using frequent and rapid iterative prototypes or mapping exercises works well.
No one represented in the peer-reviewed literature or the professional literature uses your principles. These authors use a different method successfully. Therefore, it is not true that your principles apply just as powerfully to the principles in use by researchers and professional practitioners. Or, if it is true, there is no demonstration for this claim.
Yours,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | University email [log in to unmask] | Private email [log in to unmask] | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia
--
Reference
Love, T. 2010. Guidelines for Design Thinking. Love Design and Research. URL: http://www.love.com.au/index.php/thoughts/20-guidelines-for-design-thinking
Date accessed 2014 May 4.
Love, Terence. 2014a. “Re: Maths, the language for everyone, including (fine) artists?” PhD-Design List. Friday 25 April, 2014.
Love, Terence. 2014b. “Re: Guidelines on Design Methods.” PhD-Design List. Monday 5 May, 2014.
--
Terry Love wrote:
--snip—
The concept and term, ‘design thinking’ has been around since at least the 1970s around 50 years. The description you refer is one recent version that has become mass-media popular recently in that timescale.
Second, you will find the principles I listed apply just as powerfully to the principles espoused by the current populist version of design thinking.
In terms of the use by graphic designers of the principles I listed, it would be more accurate to say that graphic designers and their design outputs crucially *depend* on the use of these principles in almost all they do. If you use a graphic design program then the solutions you create and the way you think using the programs are determined by these principles embedded in the way the software works.
Incidentally, the principles I listed are also, if you think about it, the foundation of most of the design theories and conventions taught in design schools such as Swinburne. They are particularly relevant when designers want to avoid failures or wish to identify the best designs.
—snip—
mark as read
Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Thu 8/05/2014 7:13 PM
Dear Terry,
We disagree on the meaning and importance of your Guidelines for Design Thinking (Love 2010), we disagree on the you state that equate quantified symbolic representation with design thinking. You are making empirical claims about a state of affairs in the world of human interaction. The behavior of real human beings does not match your claims.
Short version (851 words):
(1) Terry Love (2014b, below) wrote: “If you use a graphic design program then the solutions you create and the way you think using the programs are determined by these principles embedded in the way the software works.”
(1) People who practice graphic design for human beings might disagree, as might those who practice communication design, information design, or book design for human beings. Your statement reveals an ignorance of design practice in these fields. You do not seem to be familiar with how professionals in graphic design, communication design, information design, or book design develop solutions. Designers use computers along with other tools and methods. Other methods are central to the creative early stages of the design process. Once the creative solution is under way, junior designers use computers to iterate drafts on instruction from senior designers. These drafts are comparable to the typeset proof sheets that would have gone back and forth between a designer and a mechanical in earlier times.
(2) Terry Love (2014b, below) wrote: “the way you think using the programs [is] determined by these principles embedded in the way the software works.”
(2) This is a highly questionable statement in philosophical and psychological terms.
(3) Terry Love (2014b, below) wrote: “the principles I listed [in Love 2010] are also, if you think about it, the foundation of most of the design theories and conventions taught in design schools such as Swinburne.”
(3) In many posts, you write that designers do NOT use these principles. This is the opposite of what you write here. In your guidelines (Love 2010), you argue that designers should use high-level mathematics in a rigorous way, quantizing design problems and design solutions in mathematical language. This is similar to your recent assertion on this list. Your argued that designers require a capacity for “mastering abstraction and meta-abstraction along with predicting dynamic behaviors in multi-dimensional spaces, going beyond linear four-dimensional understanding of the world, understanding and using limits and disjoints, moving between discrete and continuous, combinatorics and design theory (different from what is known as design theory in the design industry), understanding the calculus of change and feedback, and moving between set and metrological mapping of concepts” (Love 2014).
In post after post, you argue that designers SHOULD develop these skills, and you claim that they do NOT possess or use these skills now.
While I disagree with the assertion that all designers require these skills, it cannot BOTH be true that (a) designers do not follow the principles you advocate in your guidelines (Love 2010), AND (b) these principles are “the foundation of most of the design theories and conventions taught in design schools such as Swinburne.”
My observation is that few designers use the principles in your guidelines. While your criticism is misplaced, the assertion that designers lack the mathematical skills required to follow these highly quantitative principles is true.
Therefore, it is logically false that these principles are “the foundation of most of the design theories and conventions taught in design schools such as Swinburne.”
More than logic is involved here. Empirical observation at several hundred design schools indicates that this proposition is false. After seven years as a dean and professor at Swinburne, I can assure you that this proposition is false at Swinburne.
Few of our staff and nearly none of our students possess the mathematical skill to use your guidelines. Those with sufficient mathematical skill to do so are professors with a background in experimental psychology and computer science. They use their mathematical skills in other ways than you propose.
(4) Terry Love (2014b, below) wrote: “you will find the principles I listed apply just as powerfully to the principles espoused by the current populist version of design thinking.”
(4) This is incorrect. First, this is not a “populist” position. The sources of my comments are five or six hundred articles in peer-reviewed journals along with professional reports. By definition, this is not “populist.”
The methods in the peer-reviewed literature involve working in interdisciplinary teams, working with stakeholders, and using frequent and rapid iterative prototypes or mapping exercises. These methods do not involve quantified symbolic representation or mathematical modeling.
No one in this large, peer-reviewed literature uses your methods. Empirical evidence suggests that skilled use of the design thinking principles of (1) interdisciplinary teams, (2) working with stakeholders, and (3) using frequent and rapid iterative prototypes or mapping exercises works well.
No one represented in the peer-reviewed literature or the professional literature uses your principles. These authors use a different method successfully. Therefore, it is not true that your principles apply just as powerfully to the principles in use by researchers and professional practitioners. Or, if it is true, there is no demonstration for this claim.
Yours,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | University email [log in to unmask] | Private email [log in to unmask] | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia
--
Reference
Love, T. 2010. Guidelines for Design Thinking. Love Design and Research. URL: http://www.love.com.au/index.php/thoughts/20-guidelines-for-design-thinking
Date accessed 2014 May 4.
Love, Terence. 2014a. “Re: Maths, the language for everyone, including (fine) artists?” PhD-Design List. Friday 25 April, 2014.
Love, Terence. 2014b. “Re: Guidelines on Design Methods.” PhD-Design List. Monday 5 May, 2014.
--
Terry Love wrote:
--snip—
The concept and term, ‘design thinking’ has been around since at least the 1970s around 50 years. The description you refer is one recent version that has become mass-media popular recently in that timescale.
Second, you will find the principles I listed apply just as powerfully to the principles espoused by the current populist version of design thinking.
In terms of the use by graphic designers of the principles I listed, it would be more accurate to say that graphic designers and their design outputs crucially *depend* on the use of these principles in almost all they do. If you use a graphic design program then the solutions you create and the way you think using the programs are determined by these principles embedded in the way the software works.
Incidentally, the principles I listed are also, if you think about it, the foundation of most of the design theories and conventions taught in design schools such as Swinburne. They are particularly relevant when designers want to avoid failures or wish to identify the best designs.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
