Hi Gunnar,
I agree.
But. . .
The output of design, a specification, comprises an assembly of bits of
different kinds of information about different bits of real life.
The underlying mechanism is *choice*. The choice of what bits are in the
specification (design).
How the choice is done is relatively irrelevant. The quality of the design
depends on what has been chosen to be in the specification - by whatever
means.
It appears Martin would argue that the only way the choice can be done is by
internal human processes.
I'd argue that human internalised judgment was the original and for a long
time only way we've been able to do it with lack of better tools and
processes. I'd argue now, however, that in any design field we now have at
least partly externalised those processes with theories, standards,
concepts, patterns, practices etc . Proof is any ability to do crit.
I was also suggesting those processes of choice could be enhanced by some
design specific kinds of maths to help us make the choices better, more
accurate and faster.
So, in answer to your question, I 'd agree it doesn't need the same ways of
making the choices of what to include in the specification. The abilities to
make those choices better, however, are probably sharable between design
fields in the same way that Deming's ideas improved quality across many very
different industries.
Nearly finished that other post. . . .
Warm regards,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gunnar Swanson
Sent: Friday, 9 May 2014 11:15 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: Re: Why designers need maths
On May 9, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I suggest the similarity is that the output of all design fields is *a
> specification for something to be made or done*.
> It is the creation of the specification (the 'design') that makes
> design fields different from other fields. As far as I can see, it
> is the primary and perhaps only defining difference.
Terry--I'm comfortable with that a the primary definition of design as a
profession or trade. An interesting implication is that it makes design
(with the exception of architecture and engineering) a product of the
industrial revolution and later by implying a separation between the
specifying and the making or doing. I'd want to be a bit more specific about
"specification" but:
If specifying is the common ground, how did we arrive at an assumption that
all such specifying might use the same tool kit? Even while we agree that,
say, a dress designer and an engineering designer both create
specifications, I don't believe that they do or should share assumptions
about what makes a given specification worthwhile.
Gunnar
Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University
graphic design program
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
[log in to unmask]
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258-7006
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|