 |
 |
Erik, Not directly responsive to your request but "In some cases, they even see it as a form of deception or pretense" reminded me of a long-ago conversation on Design Observer: https://designobserver.com/feature/on-design-bullshit/3347 I wasn’t going to write the thread title to avoid perturbing the email censor software in Singapore but maybe the URL will get bounced anyway. Gunnar Gunnar Swanson East Carolina University graphic design program http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm [log in to unmask] Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville NC 27858 USA http://www.gunnarswanson.com [log in to unmask] +1 252 258-7006 > On Feb 14, 2019, at 3:56 PM, Erik Stolterman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear list, > > On my blog I recently wrote about the changing nature of design arguments. > [http://transground.blogspot.com/] The text is also below. > I wonder if any of you have studies or writings about this topic? > If so, I would be interested, you can email me directly or answer on the > list. > [log in to unmask] > > Thanks > Erik > > > The changing nature of design arguments > <http://transground.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-changing-nature-of-design-arguments.html> > When my students in my graduate design theory course have to do interviews > with practicing designers (combined in this year's class, about 100 > interviews), one thing keeps surfacing. > > In many cases, especially from more experienced designers, they mention the > changing nature of design arguments. This is not unknown, but it is > interesting to see that it is mentioned as a serious change in their > practice. The change of design arguments can be simply characterized as a > shift from a '*show and tell*' model to a '*show and explain*' model. > > The show-and-tell model basically means that the designer shows the design > itself (idea, prototype, etc) with its functionality, looks, etc. The > show-and explain model means that the designer also engages in explaining > how they came up with the design, what the process looked like, and what > testing and evaluation they have done that shows the quality of the design. > This is pushing many designers to be much more careful with their process > planning and documentation. And it also forces designers to have a broader > skill set when it comes to their process. They have to engage in more > research like activities. > > Interestingly, but not surprisingly, also emerging in these interviews is > that some designers feel as if they have to change their design argument > model only for the purpose of satisfying their client, not because it helps > them in their design practice. Actually, some see this shift as a waste of > time and effort and that it takes time away from their 'real' design > activities. In some cases, they even see it as a form of deception or > pretense. And, since they do not themselves, believe in this form of > arguments they do not feel good about it. > Best > Erik > --------------------------------------------------- > *Erik Stolterman Bergqvist* > Senior Executive Associate Dean > Professor of Informatics > School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering (SICE) > Indiana University, Bloomington > http://transground.blogspot.com/ > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------