What I had most in mind is how we adapt rooms. We build houses in which
rooms are specified and often specially formed. Then, later, we adapt
them, putting completely new functions in shells intended for something
else. Or we "misuse" them, anyhow: the bathroom as concert hall! I was
really thinking about the opportunism that is so powerful and effective
in design: that we find new possibilities that transcend the original.
I see this as a key quality of what we do when we design: we propose
something and then, examining it, often find something quite wonderful
we had never thought of in our earlier proposal. In designing, we do
this. In deciding functions we do the same. How many ways can you use a
chair, what can you use it for (I'm using one next to me as a table and
a filing system). I wasn't really meaning to support the unfunctional,
merely to suggest that functional determinism doesn't make much sense:
and that dealing with the functional requirements is often relatively
trivial: the novelty in design assumes that the result of the process
is functional, but it is much more than that.

So I didn't (and don't) want to condemn women to a life of bad
footwear; and I wasn't thinking of social/cultural determinants, but
something much more straightforward, simpler.



On 13 Jan 2005, at 20:52, Jenny Ure wrote:

> Women's shoes might be an example?  ...or perhaps simply that the
> social
> functions sometimes take precedence over the physical ones?
>
>
>
> Ranulph commented that
> .....................................
> We tried to believe that form followed function, and it didn't work.
> Function follows form just as much. While there is often some function
> to be accommodated, some purpose to be achieved, some problem to be
> solved (or even quite a lot of them), it seems to me that this is
> almost
> peripheral to the magic that designers do
> ....................................
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Ranulph Glanville
> Sent: 13 January 2005 19:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Design and intention
>
> I think I might venture something here.
>
> We tried to believe that form followed function, and it didn't work.
> Function follows form just as much. While there is often some function
> to be accommodated, some purpose to be achieved, some problem to be
> solved (or even quite a lot of them), it seems to me that this is
> almost
> peripheral to the magic that designers do, which is to make something
> new (which also happens to accommodate functions etc). It is the
> extraordinary process of the making of this something new that really
> points, after the event, to what the design problem that we were
> unknowingly trying to solve is. Thus, any explanation is necessarily a
> post-rationalisation, and that old modernist insistence that
> post-rationalisation is the ultimate designer sin is seen for the
> nonsense it is. We may try to specify the functions etc to be
> accommodated, even how to use whatever it is we produce. The first
> specification is important but peripheral, the second entertaining but
> a
> diversion-we can use it however we like, and we frequently do (function
> follows form).
>
> As to getting into heads, conversation and so on, I am naturally
> entirely with Klaus. After all, we both do cybernetics of the second
> order. Saying this is obviously nonsensical: how can I agree with, see
> the point of, etc, when I can't get into the head of? All I can do is
> make my own understanding of what I think yours is. This is, of course,
> the magic of conversation: because we don't understand the same we are
> always offering each other novelty.
>
> Finally, the value is my value, who even I am. The designer no more
> owns
> his/her design than the parent owns the child. It is free, we, each of
> us, conjoin with it in whatever way we do.
>
> I'm sure many won't agree: for reasons of use of term; history; the
> thinking we were brought up in. So be it!
>
> Ranulph
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> Ranulph Glanville
> CybernEthics Research
> 52 Lawrence Road, Southsea, Hants, PO5 1NY, UK
> tel             +44 (0) 23 92 73 77 79
> fax             +44 (0) 23 92 79 66 17
> mobile  +44 (0) 79 09 90 52 72
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/ranulph/FileSharing1.html
> http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/people/glanville/cv.html
>
> Ed, Cybernetics & Human Knowing http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK ,
> subscription [log in to unmask] On 11 Jan 2005, at 06:59, M P Ranjan
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Klaus
>>
>> Thank you for the clarification. I have been using a broader term to
>> describe the outcome of a design action since we have started looking
>> at design as a comllex activity with many outcomes (usually an object
>> plus instructions or rules of exchange plus unintended
>> consequences...etc) and design as a process that is larger than the
>> limited tasks traditionally done by a designer alone. The analogy that
>
>> I used earlier of water and ripples needs to be taken into account in
>> my model of design action. It includes intention and the results of
>> the action as well as many unintended consequences. Today these
>> unintended consequences are being taken more seriously when design
>> appropriateness is being evaluated particularly with reference to
>> ecological and social consequences of that particular design action,
>> thus making design decisions even political at one level. New
>> regulatory mechanisms and laws are being put in place to manage these
>> unintended consequences.
>>
>> While the designer may offer a framework with details for
>> implementation the seeds of the consequences are part and parcel of
>> the proposal as you call it and we could use another term here to
>> describe these consequences, the "effect" of design action or even
>> design thought which can be visualised as scenarios which anticipate
>> the short and long term consequences of that particular course of
>> action. I have been using the metaphor of "Fire" to describe the
>> systems nature of design. In this model material is transformed
>> (technology) in a hearth (context) and the and the process of
>> combustion draws in air and oxygen (environment) all working together
>> as a complex system to produce (an outcome) light, heat or smoke from
>> the resulting flame. The "effect" is considered the outcome of the
>> design action, which in this metaphor cannot be easily separated into
>> discrete components since it is a process and not an object. It is
>> with this model in mind that I have chosen the words, "outcome",
>> "effect" and "affordances" in addition to "specifications", all of
>> which help describe design as a system rather than an object.
>>
>> With warm regards
>>
>> M P Ranjan
>> from my office at NID
>> 11 January 2005 at 12.25 pm IST
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Prof M P Ranjan
>> Faculty of Design
>> Head, NID Centre for Bamboo Initiatives Faculty Member on NID
>> Governing Council (2003 -2004) National Institute of Design Paldi
>> Ahmedabad 380 007 INDIA
>>
>> Tel: 91+79+26610054 (Res)
>> Tel: 91+79+26639692 ext 1090 (Off)
>> Tel: 91+79+26639692 ext 4095 (Off)
>> Fax: 91+79+26605242
>>
>> email: <[log in to unmask]
>> web archive: <http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/>
>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>>
>>> i think we should not confuse
>>> (a) what the designer leaves behind -- i still prefer "a proposal" to
>
>>> "specifications," suggesting the result of a design activity to be
>>> more or less specific -- and
>>> (b) the considerations that the designer gave to what is presented,
>>> written, sketched, and in any case communicated
>>> (c) who the addressee of the proposal is and what that person,
>>> corporation, or community makes of the proposal,
>>>
>>> something can be considered a design (noun) only of it is passed on,
>>> understood (not necessarily as intended) and made use of.
>>>
>>> klaus
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
>>> related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>>> Behalf Of M P Ranjan
>>> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:27 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: specification Re: Design and intention
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Rosan
>>>
>>> I have been reading this thread with interest but with little time to
>
>>> add my comments. Your take on specifications limits the results of
>>> design to the confines of a product or the boundary of the system
>>> that was taken up for designing in the first place. However design
>>> does much more since it places a lot more that what was intended in
>>> the first place since it could add pollution and a number of unintend
>
>>> residue and further it can and always does leave much room for
>>> interpretation bt the user and any observer who could draw their
>>> inferences from their own perceptions and these could be
>>> unanticipated in the specifications of the origional design. The word
>
>>> "specification" therefore fails to adequately describe the outcome of
>
>>> a design task and we need to look for another term that can be used
>>> in conjunction with or in addition to the term specification.
>>> "Affordances" is one such term, there may be others since design
>>> outcomes tend to be open ended like the ripples that move back and
>>> forth when a pebble strikes a pond. This term says more about the
>>> design with not just "what it is" but as to "what you can do with
>>> it", which is usually what matters to most users of the design. If I
>>> cannot use it, it is not of much use anyway.
>>>
>>> Five years ago when I was setting up our Web Usabiliy & Research Lab
>>> (W-URL^(TM)) (pun intended) at NID I wrote a series of papers to help
>
>>> our students understand design in the context of the emerging
>>> opportunities on the web for new structures and services. These
>>> papers can be accessed from my web archive from a folder titled "MPR
>>> Papers on InfoTech". The papers pertaining to the above arguement are
>
>>> "Affordances&Design_WURL02.doc" and "What is Usability_WURL01.doc".
>>> My web archive is at <http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/>
>>>
>>> With warm regards and wishing all on PhD-Design a very happy new
> year.
>>>
>>> M P Ranjan
>>> from my office at NID
>>> 11 January 2004 at 9.50 am IST
>>>
>>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Prof M P Ranjan
>>> Faculty of Design
>>> Head, NID Centre for Bamboo Initiatives Faculty Member on NID
>>> Governing Council (2003 -2004) (continuing till
>>> date)
>>> National Institute of Design
>>> Paldi
>>> Ahmedabad 380 007 INDIA
>>>
>>> Tel: 91+79+26610054 (Res)
>>> Tel: 91+79+26639692 ext 1090 (Off)
>>> Tel: 91+79+26639692 ext 4095 (Off)
>>> Fax: 91+79+26605242
>>>
>>> email: <[log in to unmask]
>>> web archive: <http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/>
>>> ___________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Rosan Chow wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Klaus and Terry and those who are still reading
>>>>
>>>> i would like to say a few words about my take on 'specification' as
>>>> a main/defining criterion and term for 'design'.
>>>>
>>>> we all know 'design' is a profession. and we all know 'design' has
>>>> been proposed to be seen as 'a way of thinking-acting'. as a
>>>> professional practice, the definition of 'design' will change as the
>
>>>> world changes. as a way of thinking-acting, the definition of
>>>> 'design'
>>>> will also change as the world changes. however, the difference
>>>> between the two definitions, i believe, is that the former seeks to
>>>> establish a description that is timely, and the latter timeless.
>>>>
>>>> in the former case, i have no problem if a distinction is made
>>>> between what industrial designers and engineering designers produce
>>>> to get paid. a 'proposal' and a 'specification' respectively or
>>>> whatever.
>>>> however
>>>>
>>>> in the latter case, i prefer 'specification' as it seems to me this
>>>> term signifies the outcome of design generally and accurately. i
>>>> like terry's definition of design (noun). he suggests/insists that a
>
>>>> design is a specification, and not a product or an artefact. i think
>
>>>> he is right.
>>>>
>>>> however, i don't agree with his definition of designing (verb). and
>>>> i will think more about Klaus' ideas that specification/proposals
>>>> are in the domain of communication.
>>>>
>>>> thanks. this discussion is beneficial to my research.
>>>>
>>>> rosan
>>>>
>>>> Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dear terry, i see no fundamental difference between the use of
>>>>> specifications vs. proposals. in my experiences though, the
>>>>> specifications produced by designers need not be (and i would add
>>>>> cannot be) so specific, merely detailed enough for financiers to
>>>>> invest in the proposal, for engineers to make production drawings,
>>>>> and for advertisers to develop a marketing strategy. again in my
>>>>> experiences, in the course of realizing a design, many people
>>>>> introduce modifications not under the control of the designer.
>>>>> where i once worked, our assignment was to organize workshops with
>>>>> clients out of which commitments to realize an idea were to emerge.
>
>>>>> you can call this participatory design, which i happen to like for
>>>>> its inherently ethical process. sure, most designers work under
>>>>> contract and sometimes contracts spell out specific deliverables.
>>>>> but such contracts can also include hiring designers to generate
>>>>> ideas just for the client to be sure that he or she has covered the
>
>>>>> whole field.
>>>>> or to prevent good ideas not to fall into the hands of the
>>>>> completion. proposal, specifications, sketches, plans,
>>>>> instructions, program s, are all words that denote communications
>>>>> that can be acted upon by others who may or may not see some
>>>>> benefit in doing so. i think the value of shift ing the discussion
>>>>> from intentions to actual communications is that we can examine the
>
>>>>> latter for what others can do with them -- and this is surely not
>>>>> causally determinable . i am glad that michael introduced the
>>>>> intentional fallacy into the discussion and ken provided a relevant
>
>>>>> article to elucidate it.
>>>>> thanks also for your cogent distinction between causes and blame,
>>>>> which for me is a distinction between physical explanations and
>>>>> explanations concerning socially situated interactions. as i
>>>>> suggested earlier, intentions are asserted in accounts and depend
>>>>> on whether actors can be proud or embarrassed of the consequences
>>>>> of their actions. best wishes klaus
>>>>>
>>>>>    -----Original Message-----
>>>>>    From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies
> and
>>>>>    related research in Design [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ]On
>>>>>    Behalf Of Terence Love
>>>>>    Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 10:00 PM
>>>>>    To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>    Subject: Re: Design and intention
>>>>>
>>>>>    Dear Klaus,You say you prefer 'proposal' to 'specification'
>>>>>    because a design does not need as specific as a computer program
>>>>>    or an
>>>>>    engineering drawing. As far as I can see, most non-trivial
>>>>>    'designs' consist of the contractual communications that are
>>>>>    'specifications' such as engineering drawings, computer code etc
>>>>>    (specifcations for producing products, creating and managing
>>>>>    systems, structuring organisations, defining how influences can
>>>>>    be actualised (policy and advertising designs)etc) - that are
>>>>>    deliberately written in formal languages/ and tightly defined
>>>>>    symbolic structures so as to be as unambigous to the reader as
>>>>>    possible.Seems to me that a core aspect of producing a 'design'
>>>>>    is this use of formal singular unambigous 'langauges' for which
>>>>>    the aim is to minimise the reinterpretation by the user of the
>>>>>    design (as distinct formt he user of the outcome when the design
>>>>>    is actualised as a product systems etc).Best regards,Terry
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>