Philippa,
>One interesting evidence of the fact that everyone designs is the way
>that people have to, or want to, modify already 'designed' products
>after purchase.
I hope you'll excuse a brief look at the rhetoric here (not just in
your post but throughout this thread. Yours just happened to come
across my screen at a time when I could reply.)
The moves back and forth between various senses of the word "design,"
the conflation of various stakeholders having a voice in the design
process and notion that design can/should/would/would happily be done
by all. . . . It's dizzying.
The jump from some people having to modify designed objects and some
other people wanting to modify designed objects to everyone designing
seems to fall under the categories "Duh" or "Huh?" If we are defining
design in its broadest sense we don't need this evidence. If we are
using some higher threshold then choosing lapel pins hardly
constitutes a level of design that undermines professionalism.
I'm frankly confused as to what various parties' real points are in
this conversation. That consideration of users of (and others
affected by) design will improve the state of things? Duh. That this
means that most people could be, should be, or would want to be
designers (in any strong sense of the word) of most of the designed
objects and structures they encounter? Huh? That the notion that some
people may be better at certain sorts of design than others are is
somehow an attack on the personal integrity of those "left out of"
designing? That all designers should all go home and leave all future
projects to committees of those legions of stakeholders with no other
jobs to do?
The flip side of this "everyone is a designer" thing is the "nobody
else is qualified" song. A big complaint among graphic designers is
that everyone is encroaching on "our" territory. I always try to
imagine writers having similar conversations: "How can they claim
that he's a writer. He does TV scripts, not books." "How dare she
write that letter? Did she study writing in school?" (I suppose
writers can be that silly. There's Truman Capote's famous description
of -On the Road-: "That's not writing. It's typing.")
I'm not sure how the bad usability of most music equipment (which is
designed and sold in strong light and used in dim light or darkness)
affects a discussion of the similarities and differences of different
sorts of adaption: How are putting a piece of tape marking a position
on a dial and deciding on the original configuration of the dial (and
the rest of the product) similar and how are they different? Is
highlighting passages of a book comparable to designing a book? (And
is designing a book similar to writing one?)
I guess what confuses me most about this whole discussion is what
often confuses me most about this list--the generalizing about
"design" based on broad uses of the term and the implication that the
generalization must apply to activities or artifacts to which the
word is also applied.
I'm sorry that part of your post were what got me whining about this
because you started to do something that is useful. You applied the
general notions that have been put forth to a more specific realm.
Some interesting questions can come out of your radio story:
Are the impulses to modify products that fail individuals on a
functional level similar to the impulses that cause others to make
aesthetic modifications?
Do personally-initiated modifications differ in impulse and/or result
from designer-supplied choices?
In what ways and in what situations should designers encourage
modifications of products and when should they discourage it?
Are there any principles that apply across wide ranges of designing
or do the important distinctions tend to be specific?
Gunnar
--
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura CA 93001-3625
USA
+1 805 667 2200
[log in to unmask]
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
|
