Dear François,
Thank you for taking the time to write the clarification, your post is now
clear for me.
I realise that I've written the definition from the point of view of the
designer, not the user. Of course, designers are also users since they also
interact with the built environment in their daily lives. But shouldn't we
expect a designer to perform at the highest level in terms of ability, both
in terms of conceiving and manipulating artefacts? Ideally, I think a
designer should be an expert in material culture, a designer should look at
an artefact and see in a higher resolution than a non-expert.
You said
"Therefore the
length and breadth of our respective conceptualizations would be relevant
to the level of comprehensive clarity we aim to attain and express of the
interaction above."
I guess I prefer definitions to be concise. In my view, a concise
definition of a thing should cover enough ground to be able to draw
distinctions with other things, while also allowing enough room to be
applicable in different contexts. I think design is the kind of concept
that requires this kind of definition. That's the reason why I admire
Simon's definition of design, even though I don't think it is sufficient to
draw enough useful distinctions. Furthermore, let it be clear that don't
think my definition is anything near to being accurate enough. It's a work
in progress.
Thank you for the exchange, that's two posts from me on this thread, so
I'll return to reading.
All the best,
--
João Ferreira
REDES - Research & Education in Design
Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Arquitetura, CIAUD
00351 967 089 437
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|