 |
 |
fil, briefly, i agree that the boundaries between the inside functioning of and the human interface with an artifact are not always sharp. in the design of scissors you deal with both, but in the design of a computer there is a clear division of labor. interface designers do not need to know how bits are stored and changed, and the designers of a microchip have very little interest or place for how the icons look. my suggestion is that human-centered designers declare an area of competence as their own and become so proficient as to be indispensible in the design of technology generally. i hope this also sheds some light on the second sentence you are not happy with. i suggest: if designers know a little bit of everything, as comfortable or useful this might be, and nothing deeper that what other disciplines have to offer, there is no special competence that designers can do research in, develop methods for, and offer to their clients, then they can easily be replaced by those who know can offer slightly more bits of knowledge of everything. klaus -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Filippo A. Salustri Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 1:10 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ? Klaus, sorry I've been so long in replying, but my teaching schedule is crazy this semester. Your post (below) is quite clear. I understand what you mean, and I agree with it, insofar as it describes a common conception in design practise (engineering and otherwise). However, when you write: > ask some engineers whether their design process is driven by > the conceptions that potential users may bring to their design or from the > conceptions of the logic of the mechanism they envision. i think engineers > would prefer the latter. > I think you are only partially correct. Yes, there are at least some engineers that think this way. Maybe even the majority of engineers. But I also know this is changing. I meet them all the time, engineers who have realized that a truly great design gets design must account for both the technical and the human aspects. And the education system is pushing all the time towards better balance between human needs and technical requirements. This takes a lot of time; you can't throw a switch and suddenly change a whole engineering faculty into human-centred anythings. But it is changing. Which brings me to my main point: in a well-designed product, the engineering and human aspects vanish - there is only the product. I believe the distinction between the human and technical aspects /of the product/ are entirely artificial. While I can appreciate that the engineering designer and the non-engineering designer might do different kinds of designing, it's that way, I think, because we haven't figured out how to train single individuals to do both. There is also a matter of complexity, that a single person would have much more difficulty addressing. However, I also think that the distinction is "breaking" some of the interfacing links between engineering and non-engineering design. And I personally set as an ideal, to work toward a way of thinking, researching, and practising design that does not require those kinds of distinctions. Lastly, I worry about your statement: > designers who know a little bit > of everything, none too deeply, are universal charlatans. > I call such people "generalists" and I include myself among them. The generalist serves a very important function: he pulls together bits knowledge, integrates them, for widely diverse fields to create new ideas that specialists, with their deep but narrow expertise, could not ever come up with. So I'm not really sure I agree with you at all on this point. Cheers. Fil 2009/9/13 Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> > fil, > i do agree with jose and david, in case you have doubts. > > however, i want to be a bit more clear about the difference between > human-centered design and technology-centered design. > > you say that engineers also are concerned with the usefulness of the > artifacts they design. sure in an abstract sense you are right. why would > a chip designer work on trying to increase the speed of computation were it > not for the knowledge that it would be appreciated by someone, or why would > an architectural engineer be concerned with dimensioning a wall so that it > doesn't collapse if it were not for the knowledge that a collapse is costly > to someone. but this is not the only point. > > part of knowledge of value to human-centered designers is how the > stakeholders and users of their design see, conceptualize, and use their > artifacts. human-centered designers are primarily interested in making sure > that artifacts work psychologically, sociologically, and culturally. > technology centered designers (engineers) are more interested how an > artifact works mechanically. human-centered designers cannot ignore that > mechanical functioning but are fundamentally concerned with the conceptions > and meanings people bring to it. > > for example, one concept of central importance for human-centered designers > is the concept of affordance, the extent to which the conceptions of a user > are supported by what the perceived artifact does. an affordance, gibson > reminds us, is a relational concept, fundamentally routed in the > relationship between human conceptions and what of it is supported by our > environment. ask some engineers whether their design process is driven by > the conceptions that potential users may bring to their design or from the > conceptions of the logic of the mechanism they envision. i think engineers > would prefer the latter. > > let me also say that i have and engineering design degree, so i know what i > am talking about. > > personally, i think human-centered designers need to be able to do > research, > design, and argue from the unique strength of their knowledge of how humans > interface with artifacts. they need to be able to offer engineers something > engineers are not trained to conceptualize. designers who know a little > bit > of everything, none too deeply, are universal charlatans. as such, they > are > not likely to be consulted or respected by people who are very competent > for > what they do and superficially competent in what designers do. > > in my "semantic turn, a new foundation for design," i have made the case > for > the distinction between human-centered and technology-centered design, > outlined some of the methods that are unique to human-centered design, all > of which in order to strengthen professional design in its ability to earn > its respect from other disciplines it needs to work with. > > klaus > -- Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. 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://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/