As a proponent of evidence-based design, here are a few things to keep in
mind.
Design is a complex activity, involving many different components.
I believe that when we discuss the role of evidence or science, we need to
be sensitive to the different requirements of those components.
I believe that design already has different levels of rigor. These vary
from:
1. Craft-based, sharply honed intuition.
2. Rules of thumb: heuristics
3. Best practices (case-based)
4. Design patterns (modified to account for the current problem)
5. Qualitative rules of practice
6. Quantitative rules
7. Computer models
8. Mathematical models
These are listed (approximately) in terms of rigor and
precision required to develop them, but these are NOT meant to be
assessments of quality, goodness, or anything else.
You can find different components of design today at all levels.
Engineering design tends to be at levels 6, 7, and 8. Interaction design
has components of 4, 5, and 6. Color theory has components at 8. Graphic
design probably has components at all levels.
I do favor evidence-based practices, but only where appropriate and where
the results enhance rather than detract from the overall result.
In other words: the use of evidence is not a simple, binary, all-or-none
thing.
Moreover, I think that Level 1 will always be with us, will always enhance
the end result, and will always be an essential component of
design, especially for the design of physical objects and graphics, but
even for more abstract things such as services and procedures..
Don
Don Norman
Prof. and Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego
[log in to unmask] designlab.ucsd.edu/ www.jnd.org <http://www.jnd.org/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|