Oh dear, Ken
No. Ken, you are mistaken. I was writing bout maths in everyday design
situations, not large datasets, though it can also be used in that way.
The kind of use of maths I described depends on an ability to be able to
flow to and fro between the concrete world and abstract accurate-enough
structures that can predict. It doesn't need difficult maths - though you
can go there if you want. Currently, designers do that flow with other kinds
of abstract representations. Adding maths is just an extra dimension to
that.
Gunnar is closer to the mark in his understanding.
An example, working out the best layout for an interface that will present
information of different types at many different resolutions and screen
sizes and has to work well for all of them and for old and young alike.
A traditional design way is to make some images of different kinds of
layouts and then try and work out (perhaps using lots of discussion and
stakeholder collaboration) which ones work and fail and perhaps understand
why at least a little and then revise with lots of cycles through the
process creating more and more images until eventually finding something
that might work - ish.
Alternatively, one can represent what is known about screen layouts,
readability, information distribution, usability, ergonomics etc in simple
math. Then, imagine absolutely ALL the possible images that could be
creatively invented using the traditional design approach. Think of this as
the solution search space. Somewhere in all those zillions of possible
images is the few that will work, and somewhere in that group are the ones
that offer optimal designs. Now, see the simple maths above as a way of
slicing away all the parts of the solution space in which solutions are
unsatisfactory. What is left is a maths representation of a space of
solutions with the best designs. Typically the maths is simple arithmetic
and algebra - just repurposed and applied to design. Often it can be done
using simple sketches of abstract phenomena. This is simple abstraction if
design knowledge processed in and out of maths, it's not mathematical
rocket science.
Gordon Glegg and Michael French write particularly well about this process.
There is a lot in Design Studies describing it, from the 1980s to mid 90s if
I remember right.
Best wishes from a sunny Rydges hotel café in Perth CBD. King St café is
closed!
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Friday, 9 May 2014 8:30 AM
To: PHD-DESIGN PHD-DESIGN
Subject: Re: Why designers need maths
Dear Gunnar,
Here is how I decode these passages:
(1)
—snip—
[Terry Love wrote:] If designers start using maths to manage abstractions of
behaviours of designed objects, criteria and characteristics and then use
maths to abstract the behaviours of those abstractions THEN there starts to
emerge an advantage in favour of humans. This is because abstractions of the
behavior of abstractions about objects means the objects being addressed by
humans (abstracts of abstractions) potentially represent large numbers of
objects and hence massively increase the rate of variety. More importantly,
the maths can be used to focus selection of elements towards optimal
solutions - of advantage in competing against brute force management of
variety.
—snip—
Decoded: Computers can solve problems using massive abstract data sets. If
human beings learn to work with fluent, expressive mathematics, they will be
able to perform some mathematical functions that give them an advantage over
computers with respect to massive abstract data sets.
BUT
(2)
—snip—
[Terry Love wrote:] Remember if computers can learn to produce designs on
the basis of best designs and best design practices of the best designers,
it is going to be increasingly harder to stay ahead of the creative designs
of the computers.
—snip—
Decoded: Computers will soon perform most design services that human
designers now perform. Because computers will continue to advance rapidly,
it will be difficult for human designers to stay ahead of computers.
From these two propositions, I draw these conclusions. I do not agree that
these propositions are true, but if they are, these conclusions follow:
(3)
In a propositional world were computers can perform most design services at
a satisfactory level, most customers will meet their design needs by having
a computer do the work. If they do not themselves wish to purchase the
computing power and the programs that do this work, they will pay a computer
company of some kind to do it on a by-the-job basis, much as they now hire
designers.
(4)
In this propositional world, a few high-level designers with advanced
mathematical skills may find employment in firms with massive design
budgets. Some designers will succeed in freelance design practice.
(5)
In this propositional world, design schools and design students face one of
two likely futures.
(5.1) In this propositional world, the first likely future is that millions
of students continue to study design with an added component of mathematics.
In this propositional world, however, computers do most of the design work,
so nearly none of the graduates of these programs will find work as
designers. Today, one hundred design students in every thousand are working
as designers ten years after graduation. In a world where computers do
provide most design services at a lower cost than humans, this number will
shrink to something like one in a thousand or possibly one in ten thousand.
(5.2) In this propositional world, the second likely future is even simpler.
In a propositional world where computers do most design work, there will be
no need for design programs and design schools. There may be room for a few
dozen elite design schools that train designers with fluent, high-level
mathematical skills.
The notion that we will continue to train several million design students
worldwide as we do today would make no sense in this propositional world.
For a simple comparison, consider the effect that computers had on draftsmen
in architecture. Many young architects were employed as draftsmen in
architecture studios. These jobs vanished as computers took over much of
that work. Many of these people no longer work as architects. If these
people had learned both architecture and advanced mathematics, they would no
longer be unemployed architects – they would be unemployed architects with
advanced mathematical skills.
In my view, this propositional world makes relatively little sense. It has
to do with a view of design that bears no relation to the way designers work
or the services they provide. Computers are changing design practice, but so
far, I see no evidence that the kinds of advanced, abstract, second order
mathematics that Terry describes will help most designers to work better.
Yours,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor |
Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | University email
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Private email
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
