 |
 |
Hi Martin, My apologies if I didn't explain things very well. The picture I was presenting is quite different from what you inferred. I'll try again. Designers have to make many many decisions on different aspects and elements of any single design. Each of those decisions involves choices between many options. The total combination of possibilities of different options for any single design quickly runs into the millions or billions. Think for example of all the different combinations of possibilities of pantone colours, shapes, fonts, images, positions, sizes, finishes, for example in the design of a book cover. Designers have several strategies for avoiding being swamped by these millions of possibilities. Designers use particular methods such as grids, colour combinations (complementary, analogous etc), information hierarchies and learn to draw on particular generic visual structures, design guidelines, historical trends, genres, personal and many other learned visual patterns and methods. This enables them to make the design activity manageable by reducing billions of decision and combinations (many of which would not work) to a framework that they can feel free to creatively choose what they feel is the most pleasing composition. A similar process is used for most designed outcomes in Art and Design design practices. The process of making the design manageable, however, limits the design solutions considered (if that were not true, then one wouldn't expect the possibility of 'new'or 'breakthrough' designs - which are typically found over time. If instead ,one were to take the whole field of the billions of combinations of different decisions and options for each decision, one would have the whole potential 'solution space' for the intended design. This contains every possible innovation and every possible creative solution - including the ones that designers do not/cannot think of because they use the methods, knowlwedge and skills of design practice that e they have learned. The full solution space can then be analysed in many ways - usually using mathematically defined representations of design criteria. An interesting option is to select and remove from the solution space the solutions defined by the methods and knowledge that a human designer would use. This makes visible those innovative and creative design solutions that human designers would not have thought of. The solutions space analysis approach is difficult and time consuming. Its benefit, however, is that it reveals more creative and innovative design solutions than are found by human designers using the design methods and creative techniques that they have learned. Best wishes, Terry === Dr Terence Love FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI [log in to unmask] Mob: +61 434 975 848 Dept of Design Curtin University, Western Australia Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit Dept of Psychology and Social Sciences Edith Cowan University, Western Australia Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development Management School, Lancaster University, UK === -----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 Salisbury, Martin Sent: 03 June 2012 19:30 To: Dr Terence Love Subject: Terry's 1,2,3 of design methods. Was 'Another part of theory of usability' Hi Terry, One of the joys of emerging from assessment hell is a chance to catch up on these discussions. I hope you won't mind me chipping in but I am fascinated by your proposed 1,2,3 hierarchy of design methods. I am not sure whether this is something you recommend for everyone or whether it is just a personal method of reassuring yourself of the pointlessness of 'creativity'. Looking at these three methods, I would have thought that designers in many fields of endeavor would have put them the other way round. I am copying and pasting your 'league table' below, but with my alternative descriptions immediately following each one. I would greatly appreciate it if you could let me have your views/ tell me where I am going wrong: 1. Terry's version- Straight 'competence' approaches. This is where I *know* the design solutions. An example, I have 5 standard types of menu structure for website designs, and identifying which one to use is dictated by the project type. It doesn't need any guessing, I can immediately create the design. Lots of design is now this way, particularly when design software has good solutions built in. 1. Martin's version- Straight 'competence' approaches- or as we say in the business- 'clip-art approaches'. I have a series of 'off the peg' designs from which I choose one and impose it on the problem/ client. I know the outcome before I start. Lots of design is now this way- it's not usually very good but it's cheap and quick and won't absorb too much of my energy. ----- 2. Terry's version- 'Solution Space analysis' approaches. I use problem and solution characteristics and formal methods to map out the design solution space and design outcome behaviours. Some meta-analysis helps identify best solution regions or instances. 2. Martin's version- Martin doesn't fully understand the language here but he thinks it translates as, 'I use tried and trusted mechanical methods. This should do the job OK without stretching me too much'. -------- 3. Terry's version- 'Messy-guessy' design approaches. I use this bunch of design methods of association for idea generation (e.g. brainstorming, ideas on the wall, idea clustering, anthropomorpherizing) to informally and quickly identify design solutions with some kind of way of choosing between them. 3. Martin's version- I have to use my brain and think outside the box with this one. This can be a bit scary and it will certainly take much longer than options 1 and 2 (and consequently be more expensive) but is more likely to lead to a solution that is fresh, full of personality and perhaps even innovative. I will only be able to do this if I have plenty of energy. ------ Best wishes on a damp Jubilee Sunday, Martin Professor Martin Salisbury Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration Director, The Centre for Children's Book Studies Cambridge School of Art 0845 196 2351 [log in to unmask] http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html ________________________________________ From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Terence Love [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 2:44 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Another part of theory of usability Hi Gunnar, Thanks for your message. You might be right about the 'fall back onto'. It wasn't something I thought about clearly as I was writing it. I can see that anthropomorphism has several useful roles in design activity and use it myself. What follows seems like a conversation we've had before - though maybe it was just in my head! When designing, I've a particular interest in ways of identifying best solutions and mainly use three design approaches: 1. Straight 'competence' approaches. This is where I *know* the design solutions. An example, I have 5 standard types of menu structure for website designs, and identifying which one to use is dictated by the project type. It doesn't need any guessing, I can immediately create the design. Lots of design is now this way, particularly when design software has good solutions built in. 2. 'Solution Space analysis' approaches. I use problem and solution characteristics and formal methods to map out the design solution space and design outcome behaviours. Some meta-analysis helps identify best solution regions or instances. 3. 'Messy-guessy' design approaches. I use this bunch of design methods of association for idea generation (e.g. brainstorming, ideas on the wall, idea clustering, anthropomorpherizing) to informally and quickly identify design solutions with some kind of way of choosing between them. If I know what I'm doing, 'approach 1' is pretty well all that's needed. 'Approach 2' usually provides the deepest insights and enables going beyond human individual and group creativity and thinking. It also works on wicked problems. When I can't immediately identify the best design from competence and I need design solutions fast and they don't have to be the best, or I'm feeling short on energy or want to do something that's a bit more entertaining and feel good, I use the 'messy-guessy' associative methods including anthropomorphism. The associations are not valid in the formal sense. Their value is helping me push my brain into thinking up stuff that I might not otherwise have thought of while keeping me happy and feeling that I'm doing something useful! For me, there is a sort of hierarchy 1->3. Having design competence and knowing the best solution straight out is great but not often possible. Solutions space analysis is effective but hard work and takes a lot of time and resources. Anthropomorphism and other associative methods allows me the fun of muttering to myself all sorts of personal experience stuff and banging out ideas without much effort. It's enjoyable fast and effective and creates lots of possible designs, but doesn't mean the designs are necessarily any good or the best, and it does mean hiding behind the 'creativity' banner to justify them! That seems to be why I see using anthropomorphism as a 'fall-back' from other design methods - it's part of what I use when I don't use the other two approaches. Is that pejorative? Not sure - seems better to be light-hearted about it. They all do what they do. Warm regards, Terry -----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 Gunnar Swanson Sent: Friday, 1 June 2012 10:56 PM To: Dr Terence Love Subject: Re: Another part of theory of usability <snip> I agree with the last statement but there seems to be a pejorative edge to "anthropomorphic" here. (Maybe I'm just reading into it but "fall back onto" sounded dismissive.) I wouldn't assume that anthropomorphizing is always invalid for designers or users. Gunnar y -- Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems -- EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or 'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading' are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language & Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology; and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae for more information. This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free. Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may not be a 100% secure communications Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems =