Dear Don,
May I suggest something – how about putting these questions out to this very community in this forum through an anonymous survey – in my experience many people are scared to speak up yet I have no doubt you would find your answers through a collaborative and participatory approach that has a potential to engage the community and be inclusive. A divergent lens, away from technology, unitary subjects, and a dominant western-centric vision(s) of the future.
It would certainly be a welcome change. It would be such a shame to move forward (with such an important suggestion of design’s futurity) with “masters tools” known to be exclusionary when you have so many brilliant thinkers at your fingertips that understand the necessity to move toward humane technology and not human centred design (a technologist’s god trick - Haraway) and have the power to make simple changes of inclusion.
I have a question on the operational logic behind the concept of “characteristics”. I would like to understand further?
Thanks,
Britta
From: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, 30 March 2021 at 21:05
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Future of Design Education
Elio
That is a perfectly reasonable question:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:31 AM Caccavale, Elio <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> I'm not being funny but why are we still talking about Human-Centered
> Design?
We took your question seriously and realized that the phrase
"Human-Centered Design" (HCD) was too easily misunderstood. We discussed
your question at our Executive committee meeting today (Tuesday, March 30).
HCD has many meanings. One of the standard interpretations of this phrase
is that it refers to a prescribed method. This is not what we intend, so
our use of the term is misleading. We are considering replacing that phrase
(as soon as we think of a replacement).
Two components of our initiative are essential:
1. Human (or more specifically people and societies).
Why? There are many different (and legitimate) types of design. To name
on, engineering design. We are not addressing engineering design, even
though it is essential to the world and to much of our work. We are focused
on the people. We design with and for people. Many other areas of design
often say they design for people, but without actually interacting with and
collaborating with the people for whom the design is intended.
2. Evidence-based. (Both quantitative and qualitative)
Why? Some designers proclaim the virtues of their work without any
evidence. Evidence requires testing and observation carried out in an
unbiased manner with the people for whom the design is intended, starting
in the very early phases of the work so that the evidence can be useful in
modifying and refining the ideas. There are multiple forms of evidence --
we do not wish to limit what is under consideration.
TO summarize, we intended the phrase Human-centered to emphasize the
several fields of design thatSo, we focus upon people and societies using
evidence.
Finally, there are many ways in which designers can accomplish their work
so that focus on people and that use evidence to guide the design. We are
open to an extremely wide variety of techniques, and we presume that the
methods will continue to evolve to ensure coverage of all societies and
worldviews.
Does this answer the question?
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|