(trivially editing Deirdre's comment (removing the comments from the email
before the email before this one)
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Deirdre Barron <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Thanks Don, Again for my benefit (I am supervising a candidate about to
> submit), what about a sort of reverse situation?
> ...
>
> What if the text increases understanding but the designed artifact is
> being used to communicate the text rather than presented as an iconic
> design? That is, it is a communication tool rather than a technical outcome?
>
Absolutely! Text is fine for communicating some ideas,especially
abstractions, but nothing is better than a textual description plus some
specific examples, which could be drawings, artifacts, musical
compositions, etc.
Designers are creators. I would not want to take away this aspect of
design. My argument was that the design alone is seldom capable of
demonstrating the underlying knowledge that others can learn from it. This
is where a series of diagrams and text is usually needed. (Perhaps a
video?) . But yes, show the examples, show the artifacts. The artifact can
be the communication tool, or a technical outcome, or better, both at the
same time. (or perhaps some aspects of the artifact are communicative, the
others exemplars).
Don
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|