Dear Richard, Don and all,
Richard wrote,
"... can anyone think of an aspect of it that is translatable into a guide?
...
"... examples of how Gibsonīs concepts can be used by Janice and James
Designer?"
The guideline issue is a serious problem (and failure) in design research,
especially in Art and Design fields. There are four fundamental aspects of
this failure, broadly,
1. Design research findings are commonly not developed in a justifiable
manner into design guidelines for use by human designers.
2. Design guidelines are not adequately justified by research findings and
theories.
3. Design researchers are unaware of the biological limitations of humans
(as designers, design researchers and users) that limit the validity of
design guidelines and design theories (particularly in creative areas).
4. It is faultily assumed that design tools and methods result in design
guidelines
I wrote about these issues and the 'Gap' in a paper for Design and Emotion
2010 at Chicago giving examples from Delft University's design methods .
Don Norman covered the same issue in his keynote at that conference. I'd
also previously draw attention to the problems in 20o9 and 2001
https://www.love.com.au/docs/2010/Des-guide-gap-2feedbackloop.pdf
https://www.love.com.au/docs/2009/TL_IASDR.pdf
The real fundamental failure that underpins this guideline problem in many
design fields, is the failure to make *outcomes* the central measure of
interest rather than *outputs*. ('Outcomes' are the consequences of a
design, and 'outputs' are the things that are designed).
In other words, what is crucially important to resolve these deep problems
in design research and practice is to make the consequences of a design in
the world (the *outcomes*) central to all design considerations, rather
than the designed object (the *output*).
Without this change to focusing on outcomes rather than outputs, we will see
the same ongoing problems in design research, theory and education; and
design practice will remain a muddled mess.
With this centralisation of attention onto outcomes, we will see
professionalisation of design, the development of coherent design theory and
design guidelines, and a better contribution of design activity in the
social, environmental, ethical and technical realms of the world.
To focus on *outcomes* requires, however, the development of design
theories that can predict outcomes. So far, these kinds of theories are
mostly missing in almost all design fields. They are not difficult to
develop. Rather, developing them has been overlooked. The problem has been
an obsession with designed outputs, rather than the consequences for the
world of those designed outputs.
Regards,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love
CEO
Design Out Crime & CPTED Centre
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]
www.designoutcrime.org
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
