 |
 |
On Sep 30, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote: > since you ask: my operational definition of design is what a group of > professed designers are satisfied with as accounting for their > practices (in > social networks). if their articulations are con-sensually practiced > indeed, not coming from an outsider, disembodied, abstract, and > supposedly > general, then it is sufficient as a living theory of design -- > perhaps not > yours but for those who use the word in con-sensual coordination of > their > practices. Klaus: This really doesn't get us anywhere in terms of understanding designing unless your designers are willing to explain and share what they do both in and out of social networks. It doesn't seem to take into account such things as conceptual or computational models, heuristics, or constraining infrastructures (codes, circumstances, etc) that are not consensual in operation. Are you saying that only the products of such abstract entities become objects of consensual language or is it their use that is sanctioned within the network?I suspect that some of us have a hard time with the lack of specificity of your "operational" definition. Although abstract and hopefully generalized from experience a respectable theory at least provides a detailed model through which both those inside and outside a social network can explore, "account" and seek to understand what might be going on. Chuck