Dear all,

Victor's last message points to a crucial area of design. He stated:

>  ... All are introducing products to society and none without thick 
>fields of discourse that judge and evaluate them. If we have 
>something comparable in design and I am missing it, I welcome 
>someone on the list pointing it out.

The practices of design seem to be lacking clear 'criteria to judge 
and evaluate'. Or probably more accurate: design criteria are not 
sufficiently related to people (users, consumers, ...) or society 
(environment, social consequences, ...).

The criteria that are used are mainly related to the commissioner 
(profits, costs, status, ...) and the designer (awards, income, 
status, ...).

In other words: the criteria are very strongly related to the 
development side of design, and poorly related to the user-side.

There are all sorts of reasons for this. I name three:
- product development is/was technology driven: new opportunities 
needed to be put into practice.
- design is/was driven by style: it must look 'up to date'.
- until now, the natural resources seemed endless. Materials, energy 
and time did not have limits.
[Some designers ask the 'why-question' about these reasons, but it is 
still exceptional.]


The only way to develop design-criteria on the user-side is to 
observe people while they are interacting with products, and ask what 
they think.

[An example from my own practice: designing information about 
medicines. If you become a patient who has to take more than 3 
different types of medicines, than it becomes extremely difficult to 
figure out a daily routine. (When to take, how much to take, in which 
sequence?). The individual investment in time (and frustration) to 
wade through too much legally required material, and the social costs 
(anxious phone calls, hospitalization in case of error, waste of 
materials, ...) are substantial. Still we accept this as 'normal'. If 
you ask patients what they really would like, very different designs 
are required. Following the requirements of patients would however 
require a major change in the European and US-legislation.]

Oberving how people handle products has some consequences for design practice.
- Asking people about their interaction with products will reveal the 
limits of the design activity. In the discussions/talks they will 
mention ideas that cannot be tackled by designers. (Unless we 
approach areas like 'organizational management' and 'policy 
development' as design as well.)
- Asking people how they value products will highlight conflicts 
between the 'commissioner/designer aims' and the 'person/social' 
aims. This requires a strong ethical discussion.

But it does not stop there: the processes and results need to be made 
public too. Without descriptions of the aims, process and results of 
design projects, it is very difficult to judge and evaluate products.

[Even in the medical-pharmaceutical area, very few case studies are 
available that describe both the design development and the tangible 
results for all stakeholders. Some good examples of revealing case 
studies would  be very welcome.]

Kind regards,
Karel.
[log in to unmask]