Hi everyone,
It is good to define the term "context" and establish a convention for no
more than two different meanings.
I see a very strong tendency in the previous
messages to treat "context" as the functional context/environment of the
artifact; the social situation(s) in which the artifact is
functioning and has to "fit in" and to be congruent with; and the basis
for developing design requirements.
It is important to establish a convention what is "context"
because the word has acquired at least a couple of meanings in
architectural design, and maybe some more in industrial design.
Looking at the book that was mentioned in a previous message, it makes
sense to treat "context" as the object of sociocultural analysis and
problem definition that precede the preparation of solutions --
"Contextual design : defining customer-centered
systems" Hugh Beyer, Karen Holtzblatt. -- San Francisco, Calif. : Morgan
Kaufmann Publishers, c1998.
This analytical and problem-formulation activity is well known in facility
development as "facility programming"(North America) or "briefing"(UK and
The British Commonwealth).
The nature of context can be reconstructed by analyzing
the sociocultural concerns in design. (Of course, if we are interested to
see the "context" in this way.) Architects also interpret "context" in
terms of the physical surroundings of the building, and I dare say, they
pay a lot of attention to this part of the situation, particularly in the
formal/aesthetic analysis.
If the discussion culminates with definite suggestions for establishing
a convention in this area, it will be really helpful clarifying the
usage of the term, and for advancing the definition of design both as an
institution and process.
Regards,
Lubomir Popov
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|