Dear colleagues,
In my view, interpretations are valid formulations due to their backgound, context, and intention. A Theory of Design Thinking suggests that an expression of any focal subject depends on the context in which it was formulated, the interpretation arising from the thinker's background, and the needs and desires that focus the expression. The theory also suggests that the choice of identifier for a color, or anything else, gives a functional boundary to the neural network in the brain sufficient to establish the expression as an object of thought that can be memorialized, recalled, adapted, and applied in subsequent thought, either subconsciously with a malleable boundary, or consciously through linguistic devices with less potential ambiguity. The potential ambiguity is thought to reside in the salience of different neuron groups in the context of the neural net. This would give subconscious imagination a greater range and linguistic definition greater precision. Just as the Color Council seeks to identify a trending color and paint manufacturer's seek a better understanding of the colors of their paint any identifier of utility in subsequent thought needs to be considered in terms of its circumstances of use, background influences and the thinkers intent. So hereTerry, is some design theory on terms you, Eduardo, Gunnar and others might accept.
Or, so I hope you will,
Chuck
> On Feb 20, 2016, at 1:13 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Ken, Eduardo, David, Sue, Stuart, Gunnar, Martin and all
>
> Ken, I can see that what I wrote doesn't make sense to you - yet. Perhaps what follows may help.
>
> One of the points I've made many times on this list is about awareness of the layering of theories and analyses, the roles of meta-analysis of theories and the precursor constraints shaping theory making.
>
> A second point I've made is about the way that information about the behaviours of a theory and its predictions, and the constraints on it can be of more use than the theory itself.
>
> A third issue is that it seems important also to distinguish between, and consider separately, the real world, theory as perceived, representations of theory (theory written down) , theory as its abstract self (different from the previous two), how characteristics of theory are shaped, and how characteristics of theories shape other things (typically other theories).
>
> The essays of John Chris Jones that Cameron made available follow the same points in many places.
>
> The question I posted about colour was a meta-level query about one of many factors that shape theory making about design activity, and, more importantly, about predicting particular outcomes from it.
>
> Specifically, the question focuses on the implications for deriving predictive theory about the outcomes (not outputs) resulting from our creation of designs, with respect to the inclusion of issues of colour.
>
> More specifically, it focuses on how assumptions we make about the continuity of colour spectrums shape the ease, practicality and usefulness of making design theories predicting outcomes in the real world about design activity.
>
> When we assume colour is a continuous spectrum, then in making design theory that includes this we are restricted to using design theory structures and theories that can encompass colour use, design and perception as continuous.
>
> In contrast, when we assume colour is used, designed and perceived as discrete units of individual colour incorporating a range of electromagnetic spectrum , or discrete segments of the electromagnetic spectrum (i.e. each a range of colour that we can regard as the same colour), we can use other design theory structures and theories that do not need to address colour being continuous. Note: there is no assumption that it will be the same bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in each case, only that there will be bands representing each colour rather than colour being continuous spectrum.
>
> The reason this may be significant is that we (as the design research community) have had difficulty in developing design theories for predicting the outcomes in the world resulting from designs and design decisions. Moving from a continuous picture of colour to a discrete one potentially offers a pathway to better and easier design theories.
>
> Part of the difficulty of creating design theory for predicting outcomes has been the need to have over-simplistic theories that can address colour and other factors as continuous. One of the key things about theories that represent continuous functions is they either require a huge depth in abstract thinking (and almost always the use of serious maths) OR they require reducing theories to simplistic form that removes their predictive ability. The latter is what has manily occurred in design.
>
> In contrast, if colour is discontinuous and there exists a measure of the coarseness of its segmentation (e.g. Pantone has 3000 colours, or there are three primary colours, or the sRGB colour space has 16.7E6 colours) then we can use very different forms of design theories to predict outcomes from design activity that are more discrete in form, and these are theories that are potentially manageable without either over simplification or a lot of maths.
>
> I suggest that the reality already exists that we accept multiple colours as the same ( although different arrangements in different circumstances). This means that in practical terms the colour spectrum comprises discrete bands of equivalence of colour, rather than being a continuous spectrum in which a colour even minisculy different in frequency is different in use, design and perception. We already accept multiple colours as the same in many ways: our individual eyes see colours differently, our eyes see colours differently at different time of the day, colour is perceived differently due to many environmental factors, for practical and financial reasons we accept that colours printed (or on screen) are what was intended even when they are slightly different, etc.
>
> In conclusion, my suggestion is that for the purposes of developing better design theories that move towards predicting outcomes resulting from designs, we pragmatically accept the practical reality of a spread of colours being the same colour, rather than seeing colour in an abstract manner as a continuous microscopically differentiated electromagnetic spectrum.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terence
>
> ---
> Dr Terence Love
> PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, PMACM, MISI
> Love Services Pty Ltd
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
> Western Australia 6030
> Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> [log in to unmask]
> www.loveservices.com.au
> --
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
> Sent: Saturday, 20 February 2016 5:45 AM
> To: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Assume fixed number of colours in design?
>
> Ken
> <snip> Terry Love’s question does not make sense to me.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|