Dear all,
It has been interesting to read the how putting humans at the center of design has its pros and cons. It is a highly relevant question, evidently when talking about the future of design and it's education.
I am in favor of the implications of HCD shifting the focus of design from the individual design genius, to solutions aimed at serving human societies at large. That, applied consciously, should in turn imply that there are environmental considerations also in place, given that the ecological systems that sustain life, sustain our human societies, as João points out.
He then goes on to say that we need a human perspective to protect the planet. I do not necessarily agree with that. The planet is perfectly well off without the human perspective.... however, we cannot escape the fact that we have the human perspective in whatever we do. It is not a matter of needing it or not, we cannot epistemological escape it. Therefore, the best thing is to acknowledge it. We will apply our human perspective to all out endeavors, whatever it is we choose to center our efforts on. If it is on striving human societies, or if we choose to focus our design efforts on renovating ecosystems and wildlife, we will always do it from our human eyes.
The core question is rather, where are our efforts best suited and more needed. Is it best to start with designing for human societies? (which we are probably better suited for given our inescapable perspective) Or to center our efforts into supporting planetary well-being, since we have perturbed it to a large extent and needs attention?
My personal opinion is that it is a personal decision and we need people working on both. Individuals, as well particular design schools should choose what they are more interested in. The Future of Design Education group has chosen people at is center. Maybe there are other design education groups that choose ecosystems or biodiversity. Not that I personally know of any though...
Best regards,
Isabel Ordóñez
Industrial designer, PhD in Sustainable Design
Teacher and Researcher at Fundació Privada Elisava Escola Universitária
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 13:58:20 -0700
From: Mauricio Mejía <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Future of Design Education
Hi Elio, Don, all,
Interesting to read this issue. I remember a few years ago that there was some positive reactions to HCD as an evolution to expand from the individual design genius that practice design for exhibition, judged awards, and elite taste. I think that is still needed as many design educators and even whole schools focus on helping designers develop their own “style” with little care for anything else.
I can also some more contemporary negative reactions to HCD and EBD. Many big tech, big food, big anything company (and smaller ones) using HCD is basically exploiting human cognitive limitations for profit. Something that may appear usable, useful, and desirable (think of big tech services) are actually harvesting our human characteristics like limited attention, curiosity, etc for profit and similar capital values. And EBD has provided support for this. Also, evidence, I think, may limit designers’ and stakeholders’ ability to imagine possibilities and speculate alternative proposals, which we urgently need in the age of multiple crises.
Best wishes.
————————————————
G. Mauricio Mejia, MDes, PhD
Associate professor, The Design School
Senior Sustainability Scientist, Global Institute of Sustainability
Arizona State University
See my research in the Transformation Lab <https://web.asu.edu/transformationlab/>
> On Mar 30, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 22:20:51 +0100
From: João Ferreira <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Future of Design Education
Dear Elio,
You suggest that it "would be helpful to extend the notion of 'societies'
beyond 'human'."
But society is precisely the word we use to describe a group of humans
living together in an ordered community. To put it another way, society is
just another way of saying "organised group of people," so how can we
extend the term without losing its meaning?
Be that as it may, that is a semantic issue. The broader point contained in
your original quip (and Gunnar's reply) is the question: should Design have
people at the centre of its concerns?
One can raise a couple of reasonable points of disagreement with the effort
of the Future of Design Education group. Still, Don Norman could not have
been clearer: the Design the group envisions has people at the centre of
their concerns. Other kinds of Design do not. Also, I’m sure the Future of
Design Education group is considering broader issues regarding the
sustainability of our planet, the impact of societal development on
ecosystems, and so on.
But here’s the key point: you need a human perspective to care about the
future of the planet and the preservation of other species. Most animals
don't spend their days pondering about planet Earth's future; they're too
busy trying not to be eaten by another predator. I'm also entirely
convinced fishes care little if the whales make it to the next century or
not.
We, on the other hand, do.
I can't imagine Design without people at its core. Humans get a bad rap
these days, and some specimens do make one wonder about the general merits
of the human race, but it would be a duller world without them. Besides,
almost all my favourite persons are human.
Best,
João
--
*João Batalheiro Ferreira*
Assistant Professor | Undergraduate Course Coordinator – Design
(00351) 967 089 437
*IADE - Faculdade de Design, Tecnologia e Comunicação - Universidade
Europeia*
iade.europeia.pt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 21:22:08 +0000
From: Heidi Overhill <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Future of Design Education
On Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 04:39:38 p.m. EDT, Britta Boyer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of PHD-DESIGN Digest - 29 Mar 2021 to 30 Mar 2021 (#2021-91)
****************************************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
