Dear Colleagues,
Disinformation and Design is a fascinating thread. It raises several issues for deliberation.
1. Writing as designing. Writing composition as design composition. What do we gain from this perspective? Do we gain or lose when we reduce the specifics of writing to the notion of some kind of very general and generic design? In this way we can reduce the whole world to design and we will lose the benefits of specializing.
2. Requirements towards terminology in legal documents and in research documents/papers. Every editor requires that a scholarly paper intended for highly educated professionals is written in plain language. However, there are no such requirements for legal documents that might be read and signed by semi-educated people.
3. Pictograms/graphic diagrams. If abstract ideas and terms like the legal ideas and terminology cannot be pinpointed in plain language, how can they be presented with pictograms that can be interpreted in thousands of ways (well, maybe not that many:). One of the big problems with legal documents is that they have to be written in a language that doesn't allow for loopholes. The big issue is the loophole.
4. Don't we go too far searching for new language of representation when we haven't used the opportunities given to us by plain language?
5. While diagrams are very good for presentation of visual relationships, movement and kinesthetic learning, quantitative information, and very strictly defined notions, they are misleading when presenting abstract ideas or wording that is not conventional. I always lough when I see how architects present with pictograms their ideas about freedom, liberty, and human dignity.
6. Diagrams present a false sense of understanding. In fact, the graphic language might be guiding us away from the verbal language.
7. Diagrams create fascination, but might lead to disinformation. Again, look how architects present program requirements with pictograms. It is appealing, but in most cases -- misleading.
8. You surely can add more points here.
9. The exceptions prove the rule.
10. I might not be completely right :) I am open for revisions.
11. Let's try to master verbal language better. (I say "verbal" because I also use "graphic.")
12. Let's leave verbal language to linguists, philosophers, and writers. When the time comes that humanity communicates with pictograms/comics, it will be a sad day for intellectuality.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
Lubomir Popov, PhD, FDRS, IDEC, CSP
Professor, Interior Design Program Coordinator
School of Family and Consumer Sciences
American Culture Studies affiliated faculty
Bowling Green State University
N217 North Eppler Hall, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
[log in to unmask]
419.372.7935
mir
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Terence Love
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 8:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Disinformation and Design
Dear David, Mitch and all,
Doing visual representations to avoid miscommunication is an interesting issue. As you wrote in the case of comics being used to explain contracts,
"If I may summarise the issue in the case of the comics: It is certainly true that a picture is worth a thousand words. The problem is which thousand and for whom?"
Building on this, there is a slightly different direction things can go in respect to this issue.
Contracts are a very special kind of designed object that for their existence depend on their being a part of a larger design comprising the judicial system (for establishing the unique meaning of contracts) and the enforcement system (criminal justice system) for ensuring contracts are fulfilled.
Currently, the primary enforceable judicial process that is available to ensure the fulfillment of contracts depends on contracts being written in words to have a unique meaning.
Contracts (other than the most informal) are expected to be written into a document using technical meanings of words together with technical language structures such to provide a unique meaning.
Some special classes of images, however, are traditionally used to provide the technical detail that enable a unique meaning to be ascribed to a contract.
In fact, the primary role of all product design drawings and specifications is nothing more than to provide this detail to uniquely define contracts .
The key point is that the visual images must *uniquely* define those aspects of the contract to which they apply. This 'unique specification of part of the contract' is the primary role of (say) pdfs of designs sent to printers, or engineering drawings sent to be manufactured, or BIM files sent to building contractors.
Here is a twist.
Currently, if one is not competent to understand the meaning of a written contract, one is legally not competent to make the agreement.
In this context, 'informal' images that 'illustrate' meaning do not have the same role as the technical words or technical design drawings that ensure a unique meaning to the contract.
In short order this then raises two questions,
1) Is a contract document that depends on visual imagery to illustrate the meaning of the intended contract actually a valid contract if the technical meaning of the contract is not explicitly specified?
2) Is a person who depends on the illustrative visual imagery to understand what they believe is the unique meaning of a contract actually in a position to validly (and legally) agree to that contract? In other words, if a party to the contract is not competent to understand the contract in terms of the unique meaning specified by the words (i.e. they depend for their understanding on what they infer from the illustrative images), does that make the contract invalid? This is an important issue for the other party to the contract.
Best wishes,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love
MICA, MORS, PMACM, MAISA, AMIMechE
CEO
Design Out Crime & CPTED Centre
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1fUlBj76fMkxQ82p6milrpSMAU1dkCLcL8SG9CPJV4-dyG3eEWJ-ynuNqUCxJOC3AZ3QBdTilVLlg00ipaw-nngV65txsRDYLI-lUhC98-8wmn-iM70yJPCs7zyAyUtd9dPec-rlVYZGEliT0RYR7jPXchE-DIVExBlSvT71m60SimBaY-nj8xO8ggUSkBos-NULpVYhn_tsF97C4v7TN70T21nGLtxC76bqxor3bwAnH92XCvyAmSVw6MBaMrfLLrp-mlJcneDjz8vesfz83f966hVRxr5oN1PRt_-SJq96m8XDEgdyIO4ta9sf60jgwMzZJi1Erhd_Gw-licto6Xk2foCJD0LfK4E2in9vLv6ExBFvXpf-Mv9-ayfGCzBCTfUZAGgmrpskBvcF6a4d2jO9PpEiqp8yMtnNRPzmW1HRo3P0SosqVVYb3vjFGLx4TEx8MUfAMvr0KEsK4NJ8cuT90fxruVEu3shvl_JqxJuMFClxBOO-WI3QSXCvl9yUEojLCDa1BRewVVkCqdLeQJw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
