Yup. This is not to minimize the importance of designed things that interact directly with humans, but the proportions suggest that all this stuff needs to fall under the domain of design.
Filippo A. Salustri, PhD, PEng
Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University, 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
tel: 416/979-5000 x7749 fax: 416/979-5265
[log in to unmask] http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil
----- Original Message -----
From: Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, June 27, 2008 11:12 am
Subject: Re: The Design Domain
To: [log in to unmask]
> Hi Fils,
> And there is much more, orders more, of this sort of design compared
> design that primarily interfaces with humans.
> -----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 Filippo
> Sent: Friday, 27 June 2008 1:20 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The Design Domain
> I wouldn't go so far as saying the only context is the human context.
> is certainly true of many - possibly most - design, but there's also many
> things that expressly do NOT interact directly with a human. Car engines,
> for instance. Motors in refrigerators. Computer hardware. Most of the
> software in the world. All these things (and more) enable an appropriate
> infrastructure for artifacts that interact with humans, but don't interact
> Yet all these things are also designed, and I seriously think they
> should be
> included in the domain of design.