Terry, Jerry, et al
On 11/22/05 7:52 PM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> As I read it, these are a restatement of a single
> concept that has been around since the early 60s
> at least.
> One of the earliest and perhaps most succinct
> versions was,
> 'move from concrete to abstract and back'
> The original perspectives on this heuristic had
> the subtlety you are outlining plus more because
> it also applies within mathematical realms. The
> aim at that time was to produce simple universally
> useful mnemonics to assist designers in improving
> design practices.
> From what I remember, as 'rules of thumb
> for practice' these were not themselves seen as
> design theory. They were viewed as a consequence of
> design research rather than part of design research.
Tell us more? Just how are rules of thumb, ie guides to thought and action
that are portable (or metaphors to fuel imagination for that matter), the
consequences of design research rather than part of it? And why were they
not seen as design theory?
Chuck
|