Hi Gunnar,

Thanks for your comments.

I'm very aware that colour is only something that happens in people's heads. Objects are not coloured nor is light.  What we see is purely a response of our light sensors and nervous system making neural/glial derived images we can perceive internally.

We have a language game in which we pretend that objects are coloured, and we use words to describe these colours. From this we have made 'colour theory' . Underpinning the colour theory from this language game are two positions. One is that colour is a continuous phenomenon, following the physicist representation of light being a continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation of which we can perceive but a small part. The second reflects the reality of the limitations of our light sensing organs and processing which perceive light primarily at 430nm (blue), 540nm (green) and 570nm (red), leading to our traditional rainbow colour model and the segregation of electromagnetic spectrum as perceived into distinct colours of which Pantone is an example.

The above is of no particular relevance to what I posted, except for the distinction between a view of colour as a continuous phenomenon and a view of colour as a discrete phenomenon.

The main issue is the continuous vs discrete character of a factor that is an aspect of design theory aimed at predicting outcomes resulting from designs.

The second step is the implications for the characteristics of design theories aimed at predicting outcomes resulting from designs.

Or, you could turn the issue around and ask first what are the characteristics of design theories aimed at predicting outcomes resulting from designs that are easier to manage and what are the characteristics of design theories aimed at predicting outcomes resulting from designs that are more difficult? Then ask which  structural characteristics of the representations of the factors that describe designs facilitate the easier theories.

I'm suggesting the discrete representations of factors such as colour facilitate us developing design theories aimed at predicting outcomes resulting from designs.

Just to be clear, when I refer to outcomes resulting from designs, I'm referring to the effects in the world. For example, design a different car and the outcomes include changes to congestion, wage inequality, demographic distribution of residence, road accident rates, crime rates and a host of other factors. I'm not referring to the outputs, such as Solidworks data or the cars themselves.

Does this help?

Warm regards,
Terry

---
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 Gunnar Swanson
Sent: Saturday, 20 February 2016 8:15 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Assume fixed number of colours in design?

Terry (or anyone else),

> On Feb 20, 2016, at 4:52 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 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. 

I have no idea what this means. It seems to be based on the idea that color is a thing (or, perhaps, a bunch of things, each of which is "a color") or that color = some specific reflectance or transmission pattern. Is that right?

Perhaps an actual example of how color might fit into some theory would help me figure out what you’re saying. (I can’t believe that I’m the only one who is completely lost as to what s being asked or asserted.)


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
-----------------------------------------------------------------