 |
 |
The point is not about good and bad design: that's a matter of value judgement, and the valuing has changed radically over the last 50 years (I was taught that post-rationalisation was a sin, whereas I have come to believe that post-rationalisation is a necessity—the unforgiveably bad has become the essential good). What I was referring to has to do with the old modernist dictum that form follows function, whereas it's the experience of each of us that function often follows form. Affordance is one word, functional specificity is another (well, two!)—it's not really important which we use. I think my preference is ambiguity. What is important, I believe, is that we understand the centrality of opportunism in design, the need to provide more than the necessary (ie, generosity) and that, while there are usually functions to be accommodated, design is not really about that. We assume the functions will somehow be accommodated. Design lies, mainly, in the rest. This is why I mentioned the modernist dictum, and it relates to what can and cannot be specified, and what specification might be for. What specification might be for is, of course, concerned with intention. ________________________________________________________ Ranulph Glanville CybernEthics Research 52 Lawrence Road, Southsea, Hants, PO5 1NY, UK tel +44 (0) 23 92 73 77 79 fax +44 (0) 23 92 79 66 17