I have witnessed long discussions in the past on the definitions of design related words. I think that the problem is that design is so interwoven with human culture art and commerce to such and extent cthat single words have a number of valid definitions depending on the background of the user.
I am not against finding some starting point which may help communication but langauge is such a crude mechanism compared to human perception and creativity. Language has been defined in the past but design is about defining the future.
______________________________
R o b C u r e d a l e
Chair Product Design
College for Creative Studies Detroit
201 East Kirby
Detroit MI 48202-4034
Phone: 313 664 7625
Fax: 313 664 7620
email: [log in to unmask]
______________________________
>>> Philippa Ashton <[log in to unmask]> 11/11/02 06:02AM >>>
Dear All,
Am I the lone voice who is saying please, oh, please do not spend time
compiling defintions of words/phrases! I can not see what use is served
defining things that already have definitions.
Are you going to create definitions that are different from the rest of
the world - how then do we communicate with others? How do you police
this. Do you mean that I am only going to be allowed to use YOUR
definiton of design when I write to this list. What happens if people
do not adhere to your definitons and use the word design in a new way
(horror!)? I suppose you could always burn persistant offenders at the
stake!
You will toil and sweat to come up with definitons that not everyone
will buy into anyway - if they are so mutually aceptable they will be
so unspecifc as to be meaningless.
I well remember the torment some of us went through in the early days
of design management where we sat earnestly round tables agonising
about the nuances between the terms 'design management' and 'managing
design'. Useful 'teambuilding' perhaps but workable defintions - no.
Design management is still quite an ill defined area and no bad thing
for that.
Apart from anything else I have been fairly staggered by the way many
writers to this list play fast and loose with a wide range of words and
terms from other academic diciplines. Would we find it acceptable if
say Peter Checkland said we were no longer allowed to use 'soft
systems' in the context of design because it did not fit with his
definition of the term? Pots, kettles and black come to mind!
I feel some of you are chaamping at the bit to get hold of this
project. OK do it for your own interest if you have the time, but
please don't fool yourselves that this is making a contribution to the
functioning of this discussion group or the furtherance of design
research.
Philippa Ashton
Staffordshire University
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:13:50 +0100 Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dear Chris,
>
> Thanks.
>
> A headword collection is simple. It involves collecting any word (f.ex.,
> design, informstion, research, telecommunications, intermedia, etc.) that
> people would like to see in a final compendium or glossary. The same goes
> for phrases (f.ex., knowledge transfer, CAAD, ITC, information design,
> etc.)
>
> If people send you any such items, you can simplky gather them and organize
> them in alphabetical order. In my experience, the best way to do this is to
> ask people to send you the words so that you can collect them and
> alphabetize them in an expanding, iterative list.
>
> I will post a few notes on further steps in the process on the weekend when
> I return home.
>
> A good headword collection is an important first step. While you gather
> this, people can pursue the second and third steps on their own. Within a
> month or two, it should be possible to structure a well orgnized system for
> managing the next steps.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken
|