Hello Glenn

i am so sorry. i should have asked. (i have been having problems with my
emails).

nevertheless, i thought my reply on "lav advice' was related to design
research. i was hinting at the fact that 'reconceptualization of design
problem' is a key skill to be researched and taught in design schools. and i
thought the 'lav design' case would be an interesting concrete point of entry
for discussion.... but the discussion didn't go to the direction that i
wished... but then again, this is an open list... i come to live with this.

anyway, what do you think of my ideas about lavs design? or this is
practically not acceptable because the management just wants a lav? or you
think it is silly. or working designers are not required to redesign the
design problems? see, to me there are questions that are relevant to research
and education.

rosan


[log in to unmask] wrote:

> Rosan,
>
> Whilst possibly of some interest to some on the list. I reckon Cindy's
> point is valid and that pulling the original subject across to 'lavs' is
> the reason I emailed you alone and not the whole list.
>
> Personally have no problem with it, but others may have. Is there a
> 'Continental' European expression - that it all ends in the lav?
>
> Heard this a couple of times before when we finished a fly through VR in
> the smallest room by accident , (was at a total loss at the time to
> understand the seemingly amusing point made by my French and German
> colleagues).
>
> The original post in response to your question on what skills should be
> taught or researched seems to have got lost however.
>
> Following the previous thread from Jan Coker  - am I correct in
> understanding that if a designer poses a thesis and examines said thesis by
> practice - it counts as research?
>
> If one followed this through to a logical conclusion - a Ph.D would not be
> required by design as a whole in advancing design research?
>
> As a practitioner and not a researcher - this is confusing to say the
> least.
>
> Quoting Paul Graham a LISP programmer and creator of one of the first spam
> filters:
>
> "The difference between design and research seems to be a question of new
> versus good. Design doesn't have to be new, but it has to be good (to Rob's
> point of view). Research doesn't have to be good, but it has to be new. I
> think these two paths converge at the top: the best design surpasses its
> predecessors by using new ideas, and the best research solves problems that
> are not only new, but actually worth solving. So ultimately we're aiming
> for the same destination, just approaching it from different directions."
>
> ref: This article is derived from a keynote talk given at the fall 2002
> meeting of NEPLS.January 2003
>
> Glenn Johnson