Dear Charlotte, David, Michael and all;
Years ago I have written something like this: I do not know if science
(PROVEN methods - methodOLOGY) is to contribute to design, but I certainly
am sure of one thing that design has a lot to contribute to science. What we
call design usually states itself as not the quality of a process but the
quality of an outcome : a product, a system, a poem, a song, or a fried egg
for dinner. Methods in design can not be proven to be right or wrong, good
and bad unless you want the same egg to be fried with the same taste for the
same table with everybody and every condition same around it. It don't mean
that there are methods to fry eggs, but our human capacity to develop
methods not to fry eggs are lesser I think. And do not forget that there is
no limit in our cognitive tastes... In case of designing the ways to make
things are more than the ways not to do it (unless there is no intention).
Sometimes I start with my students by asking them to design something
(anything) bad, ugly, and wrong. "Yet there be madness there is still method
in it" says Polonius, to be killed later, in Hamlet.
If there have been PROVEN methods to design, maybe those who are designers
(even in the kitchen) would have never done anything, and those who claims
to be knowing and understanding everything would be the designers, which I
am glad is not the case. A state of (personal or common) mind is much more a
necessity for designing. I don't mean that an understanding and and a
knowledge of proven methods do not contribute to designing, but they are
always there and useless unless you have a fire in your mind burning for
products, systems, poetry, music, dinner tables, and more than anything an
intention for life and people.
a. can ozcan, phd.msc.bid
assistant professor dr
izmir institute of technology
dept of industrial design
email: [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: Charlotte Magnusson <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Building the Field? Useable Information
Dear David and all,
Some years ago I read a dissertation by Henrik Gedenryd from the Cognitive
Science dept at Lund University (you can find it on
http://www.lucs.lu.se/People/Henrik.Gedenryd/HowDesignersWork/index.html).
Basically he states that design methods (with his definition of "method")
does (and can) not work. I have noticed that myself I have since then
started to talk about a "toolbox" instead of methods - but maybe I am just
shirking the issue;-).
Another thing which I would be interested to find out more about is the way
the amount of persons involved influence the design process. My feeling is
that roughly speaking the process will be more rigid (and maybe more of a
method) the more persons there are. Anybody who can direct me to anybody who
has studied this, or has ideas on the subject?
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
|