Glenn, Chris, et al.

I would add in support of Chris's remarks that integrated design support
systems will include the capacity to simulate the fabrication and use of
designs.  Companies like Black and Decker have for many years been using
systems that allow designers to directly model and manipulate the forms they
create to assure proper flow of plastic in the mold, placement of parting
lines, etc. the digital outcome of which is used to control machining the
mold. At the University of the Arts we created a comprehensive computer
based system that would allow digital representation and testing of
preliminary designs of automobile interfaces in a full scale driving
simulator by actual people whose behavior we could capture to guide
improvement in placement and form. As designers we could "use" our designs
before commiting them to physical prototypes (or user tests).(see Burnette,
C, 1995; "The Advanced Driver Interface Design/Assesment Project";
Proceedings, Symposium on Interactive Virtual Environments, University of
Iowa. or for the nitty gritty, Burnette, C. and Schaaf, W. 1998; "Issues in
using Jack Human Figure Software to Assess Human-Vehicle Interaction in a
Driving Simulator" Transportation Research Record #1631 pp 1-7,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National academy
Press, Washington DC) Where is British Aerospace in all this?

Just as the existence of a vacuum cleaner did not totally replace the broom,
digital representation augments and enhances, but does not totally replace
drawing. As Chris points out, it allows deeper, more thoroughgoing design.
The tradeoffs between direct physical sensing and abstract representation
were well presented back in 1988 by Shoshana Zuboff in The Age of the Smart
Machine, Basic Books, NYC.

Best to all,
Chuck




On 1/14/06 6:40 AM, "Rust, Chris" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Glenn Johnson commented:
>  
>> Drawing on the screen to create virtual artefacts takes design to another
> level. 100% virtual.<
>  
> Sorry Glenn, I may be missing the nuance here,
>  
> Are you quoting some publicity?  Or maybe being ironic in some way? Anyway
> assuming you are serious....
>  
> One of the main advantages of computer modelling seems to be that it allows us
> to move more quickly into the production of
> physical prototypes and that opens up much richer opportunities for evaluation
> in the design process.  My own view is that this
> allows a kind of accelerated craft evolution approach.
>  
> In the days of the design methods movement John Christopher Jones* was rather
> dismissive of craft evolution and wanted to see more
> attention paid to modern systems thinking - the idea that if we were clever
> enough and thought hard enough at the start we could
> plan complex modern artefacts like aircraft and traffic management systems.  I
> was greatly heartened in the early 1990's when an
> engineer at British Aerospace, in charge of one of the first industrial rapid
> prototyping systems, pointed out to me that these
> new technologies meant that we were no longer worried about planning things to
> be "right first time".  Instead the game was "fast
> failure" - being able to make things quickly and cheaply so you could find out
> what was wrong with the design and move on. There
> is a continuing tension between physical and virtual and good arguments for
> not putting all our faith in the virtual environment
> that are nothing to do with the quality of drawing tools (drawings, in
> relation to 3D artefacts, are virtual representations
> anyway regardless of the medium)
>  
> Glenn's virtual/robot designer brings up an entirely other issue. I have
> become interested in the distinction between doing
> designing and doing engineering, especially when it applies to engineers who
> seem to be doing both. One idea that I would like to
> explore is that engineering is the art of taming wicked problems and designing
> is the business of dealing with wicked problems
> that cannot yet be tamed. For example there are many "design rules" which
> allow us to sub-contract routinised tasks to computers
> (such as laying out many circuit boards)  and I would say that rule-based
> practices should not be described as "designing". It's a
> confusion that engineers often perpetrate.
>  
> Maybe soon we'll see rule based approaches to some routine form-handling
> tasks, such as producing "nice" appliances for the
> extremely low cost marketplace, but those will not be the problems that will
> engage serious designers in future so it's not a big
> deal, unless you are a manufacturer trying to pare the costs even further.
> Since most manufacturers are going down the same route
> that farmers did before them, losing their social and economic significance
> along with their workforce**, I'm not losing a lot of
> sleep.
>  
>  
> *Yes I know JCJ has moved on since then but it's a good example of modernist
> thought in our dicipline.
>  
> **Ironically we are becoming more concerned today with energy (basic resource)
> security and food security but somehow I can't see
> a government getting into a lather about gadget security (our ability to
> ensure a continuing supply of gadgets in times of
> international tension).
>  
> best wishes from Sheffield
> Chris
>  
> ***************************************
> Professor Chris Rust
> Head of Art and Design Research Centre
> Sheffield Hallam University
> Psalter Lane
> Sheffield S7 1SF,   UK
>  
> +44 114 225 2686
> [log in to unmask]
> www.chrisrust.net