I apologize for not being more active on this list - as many others I am short of time ;-)
Anyway, I just wanted to question if it is so simple to separate technical and aestetical aspects of design. In my experience (mainly from software interfaces) these two aspects continously influence each other.....
Best wishes!
/Charlotte
Charlotte Magnusson, Assistant Professor
Certec, Division of Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Department of Design Sciences
Lund University, Sweden
tel. +46 46 222 4097
fax. +46 46 222 4431
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael A R Biggs [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: torsdag den 19 september 2002 12:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Building the Field? Useable Information
I would like to save David from some of his self-professed liability to
embarrassment about the presence or absence of PROVEN methods.
There seem to me to be [at least] two aspects to design (and art etc): the
technical and the aesthetic (and you can add the ethical to the aesthetic
side if you want, etc).
We should be able to identify PROVEN methods in the technical area.
But why should we feel obliged to have PROVEN methods in aesthetics, the
ethical, etc.? What would that mean? It assumes a criterion of performance
that we simply do not apply, or at least we do not apply one over long
periods of time as opposed to within one particular "school" or "movement".
This was the theme of my Common Ground paper: it is easy to feel we OUGHT
to have PROVEN methods, but if we make this distinction technical and
aesthetic) I believe the imperative dissolves. A case of "language goes on
holiday" (from Wittgenstein)?
Michael
At 09:37 18/09/2002 +0100, davidsless wrote:
>Glen, Rosan and all
>
>First, my usual caveat. I'm able to contribute on an intermittent basis
>only. I'm currently on a train heading from London to Reading and I don't
>know when I will be able to hook into the internet next, send this, or have
>time to respond.
>
>To begin with Glen's question.
> > We are asking - are there any PROVEN ways in which we can improve our
> > ability to design?
>Glen, I think this question is spot on. The litmus test for any research
>conference is whether someone reports new findings or new ways of thinking
>that I did not know about before. In particular, in the design field, I look
>for new or improved ways of doing design that have been validated in some
>way. Or new ways of thinking about design and design problem solving.
>
>I cannot answer your specific question about industrial design, because I am
>not an industrial designer. My own field is information design--these days
>going under much fancier titles such as information architecture,
>interaction design, or even experience design. (We live in desperate times!)
>
>As a researcher in information design, I would be deeply embarrassed if I
>could not answers such a question, if it was asked of me by a practicing
>information designer. Yes, in our field of information design there are
>PROVEN ways in which we can improve our ability to design, and we have,
>along with others, done research which provides that proof. And we continue
>to do such research. Sadly though, I can report that in the sessions I
>attended, I did not learn anything that struck me as new, either by way of
>findings, ideas or methods.
>
>Obviously, in a conference of this size, with so many parallel sessions,
>it's impossible for anyone to attend every session. And I have not yet read
>the full proceedings. Some people did tell me that they learnt some new
>things in other sessions. Others reported a similar experience to my own. I
>hope we hear from them all on this list.
>
>Rosan, asked:
> >What is our common ground? Was a common ground laid or refabricated at the
> >conference? And how was the idea of 'common' being outlined at the
> conference?
>
>I notice since you asked this question, we all got diverted by the claim
>that 'Common Ground' was not really the theme, and further diverted into a
>side issue about 'blind refereeing' (I think, as an aside, that we would be
>better calling it 'invisible refereeing', but then it depends on who is
>looking at what, and who knows who is looking at what. It always fascinates
>me the lengths we go to to hide who is doing what to whom. But then, what is
>done, is done, and we know not by whom.)
>
>Moving to your question. It's worth pointing out that there are at least two
>major meanings to the word common: something shared, and something ordinary.
>In reflections on the conference I hover between the two.
>
>In the sense of something shared--a zeitgeist--I think Trond Are Oritsland
>captured part of that when he referred to:
> > - A philosophical interest in phenomenology and "the embodied mind" .
> > - Shared interest in design teaching in terms of understanding the
> process of
>design.
> > - A movement from the object, to interaction as the basis of designs
>"artifact"
>
> >From my limited exposure to the papers presented, this was the impression I
>derived.
>
>I would perhaps add to this, as others have already:
>- A preoccupation with the social value of design
>- An interest in the design of social systems, such as services.
>
>But I hasten to repeat that this was my impression of the zeitgeist of the
>conference, and none of these ideas are new in design practice or research.
>
>I often feel that conferences are a special side channel in the river of
>life. We enter the channel, and for a few precious days we move at a slower
>pace in deeper waters, mingle in a slow dance with others, and at the end we
>are dumped back into the main channel, cascading over the wear, tumbling
>back into life and the main stream.
>
>I think the conference organisers provided us with an excellent opportunity
>to partake in that slow dance. Many thanks to them for that opportunity. I'm
>sure that many of us, myself included, look forward to the next side channel
>along the river.
>
>Did we make any great advance? lay a common ground? or even prepare the
>foundations for a common ground? Alas, I think not. But the fact that we
>want to continue dancing together is sometimes enough.
>
>David
>
>--
>Professor David Sless
>BA MSc FRSA
>Co-Chair Information Design Association
>Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
>Director
>Communication Research Institute of Australia
>** helping people communicate with people **
>
>PO Box 398 Hawker
>ACT 2614 Australia
>
>Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
>
>phone: +61 (0)2 6259 8671
>fax: +61 (0)2 6259 8672
>web: http://www.communication.org.au
*******************************************************
Dr Michael A R Biggs
Reader in Visual Communication
Faculty of Art and Design
University of Hertfordshire
College Lane,
Hatfield, Herts. AL10 9AB
United Kingdom
Telephone UK+ (0)1707 285341
Fax UK+ (0)1707 285350
E-mail [log in to unmask]
Internet http://www.michaelbiggs.org.uk/pub/
The full postgraduate prospectus is available online at
http://www.herts.ac.uk/
For information about art and design research degrees go to
http://www.artdes.herts.ac.uk/res2prac/resdegs/resindex.htm
The journal Working Papers in Art and Design is at
http://www.artdes.herts.ac.uk/papers/wpades/
The Centre for Research in Electronic Art and Communication is at
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/practice/creac/
***********************************************************
|