 |
 |
Dear Birger I am another one in the category of design professionals advocating and practicing scientific backed design (fine-art backed design is another approach that has its own merits that fulfill other human evidence needs). And on several occasions on this list, I mentioned David Sless’s work at his Australia based Communication Research Institute, as one of the few best evidenced design approach in the communication design subfield. I’ll leave it up to David to remind us better his definition of EBD in Communication. Contrary to your assertion that none among us has ever provided a definition of EBD, David has repeatedly explained to us what he and his team have been doing in Australia, for so many years now On a several occasios also on this list, for over a decade now, I have often given what I believe to be a definition of EBD, in the domain of my expertise, i. e. the design subfield of product and service development. Sorry for those who may be tired of me repeating again this but you’ll find it in the report published in Design Issues: Volume 26, Number 4 Autumn 2010, pp. 57-70: The SIP System: A Design Research Concept at the Paris Centre Beaubourg, 1973-1992. I am therefore surprised that, for some reason or orientation, you seem not having noted David’s definition, nor mine. Trained and inspired by the three French designers I worked with in the 70,s and the 80‘s, and I remain in touch with them until now, my definition of, or the way I conceive and practice EBD, is in the answer I give to those asking/challenging me as follows: ‘Prove to us that your artifact proposal is BETTER than those already in use, or better than any other proposal anyone else would come up with’. My answer is always: ‘ First, based on my current and proven knowledge, my design proposal is the safetest in use thus far; secondly, it offers more advantages over inevitable disadvantages in use than all other similar artifacts I have tested’. And the evidence of my assertion, i.e. my definition of EBD, lies in proven knowledge, both scientific, technical, and mundane I have gathered and assessed in regard to the safety first, and then to most of other quality factors, both sience-y and art-y of my proposal. I haven’t yet read Gjoko's manual, but I hope it includes as well a hint at the method I report on in the reference above, that of ‘comparative analysis of daily usage qualities of tangible arifacts’. In spite of the fact that, for some reasons, this method remains unknown to, and unused by designers, I nonetheless believe it is thus far the best overall method to mining artifactual knowledge and to assessing, i.e. evidencing this with a view to proceed with better design, better procurement, and better use of tangible artifacts of any level of complexity. Francois Kigali, Rwanda On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Birger Sevaldson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Again I am getting worried when EBD is a theme here at this list. My > worries are not caused by the use of evidence in design but by the > spreading belief that the use of evidence in design will become main > stream, replacing designing with problem solving based on evidence, and > becoming the dominating way of designing. > (...) ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------