Dr Nicola Morelli
Centre for Design at RMIT University
GPOBox 2476V Melbourne Victoria 3001
Web: http://users.tce.rmit.edu.au/e07643
>>> Kari-Hans Kommonen <[log in to unmask]> 12/07/01 11:19AM >>>
Hi Nicola and Erik!
At 10:43 +1100 7.12.2001, Nicola Morelli wrote:
>>I perfectly agree with you about the fact that designers have a
>>responsibility, however I wonder whether their responsibility really
>>consists in the critique and evaluation of our society, or it is
>>just a personal and (as much as possible) honest proposal of
>>something that (according to the designer's personal believes) would
>>be beneficial for our society.
>How do you separate those two? You need to make sense of the society
>as your context, and your designs will, at least if successful,
>contribute to its development (good or bad). I can't see a
>qualitative difference between the 1) and 2) that you seem to be
>talking about. But one can, and needs to, judge per project to focus
>on something that's less than everything. How large that less is, can
>feel more or less personal. Can you be more specific? Where are the
>boundaries of concern? Are there guidelines? Or is it per issue
>judgement?
My doubt was about criticising or evaluating society, not about making sense. Evaluation implies personal judgement, while making sense implies just making sense, it is neutral. In 2) I was suggesting that designers judges his/her product (not society) in terms of how this product can be accepted, recognised and generate good or bad changes in society.
>>A second question, do we really need to create design oriented
>>'languages'? Everythink in our world has a communication value,
>>which is expressed with its own language and every language makes
>>sense for a certain group of people. My impression is that, instead
>>of creating yet a new language (that would probably be understood
>>only by the design community, while other users would probably
>>interpret the same language in a different way) designers have to
>>learn to speak and to understand all the other languages and
>>interpretations people can attribute to the communicative component
>>of products.
>I am with Erik in this - and maybe he thinks this way because he's
>involved in information technology, which already is expressed in
>weird languages which people can't understand unless they specialize,
>which makes it hard for non-specialists to understand IT design
>issues. I also strongly believe that new language(s) are needed, but
>maybe not in as dramatic fashion as esperanto etc.
>Concepts and construction elements. Body language, gestures,
>interaction patterns. Signs, objects. Flowers. Language can be
>understood more broadly than how a grammar and dictionary presents
>it. But the key is communication and comprehension. We need ways to
>express design characteristics (and again, nowhere is the need as
>pressing as in making software design tangible for people) in such
>ways that people can discuss and participate intelligently in design,
>including its influence in society.
>But in order to do so, those people need to learn the new concepts
>and vocabularies, and maybe some new forms of language; and the
>designers need to be able to introduce them to anyone using the
>language of those people.
Probably I didn't explain myself very well, and certainly I didn't ask this question that was in the back of my mind and also apply to Kari-Hans question:
Is it this language something that has always been there? What do we have to invent? If there was no design language designers would have found impossible to communicate with thei customers, basically this is a extreme hypothesis, as without a language, design would have never existed.
We already have a language to express design characteristics. We have more than one languages for doing this and we, not designers but the larger community of consumers, has tools to understand and distinguish between those languages.
If the problem is to generate new language, this is again a problem that has always existed, as design language, as well as any other language, evolves on the basis of its use and the mutual understanding between those who communicate and those who receive and interpret communication. A new language cannot come out of the blue, is something that is developed in this evolutionary process.
Ciao
Nicola
|