 |
 |
Jan, Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying there are some actions that are not planned, spontaneous, even instinctive that result in good designs, and that those actions should then be called 'designing' because they result in (good) designs? Cheers. Fil Jan Coker wrote: > Hello again to all my friends and also those who I don't know on the list. > > Rob and Jason, > I would argue that the key word is action not necessarily premeditation. > Something can be a very good design resolution out of emmidiate and > unpremeditated response to need, that doesn't mean that it should become > the WAY to do design. It just becomes a way to respond to need, and > should not be excluded from the definition of design. In fact if one > examines the unpremeditated process one may find that it is a faster and > unselfconscious version of design process which given time can become > very premeditated and may need at that point to find ways of including a > sense of spontaneity. When we go after a definition of design, (we > always do) it tends toward defining the limits, whenever we do this it > tends to not include the scope of possibilities. Perhaps it is not what > it isn't but what it is- so thinking that goes something like, > premeditated thoughtful planned problem solving and/or also > unselfconscious action response to need. We can make an extended list > this way. > Jan > Jan Coker > University of South Australia > > -- Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Ryerson University 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749 Fax: 416/979-5265 Email: [log in to unmask] http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/