It seems to me, that there are so many different thoughts relevant to
design at play here, that a different way of organising them might be
helpful. As I see it, a lot of things are often bulked into design
methodology which do not belong there...
In planning theory, a distinction is often made between (1) theories
IN planning, (2) theories OF planning, and (3) theories FOR planning.
While (1) are substantive theories, or theories about what planning is
about, (2) are procedural theories, or theories about how planning is
performed. (3) are theories about relationships and conditions which
are conditional to planning and/or the tools and techniques of planning.
Transferred to (object) design, the discussion about user/producer/
designer oriented design resides within 'theory IN design', while any
discussion about design methodology is clearly a matter of how to
design or 'theory OF design'.
'Theories FOR design' is stuff which is nice for designers to know
although it cannot meaningfully be considered specific to design.
Hence, if a designer thinks under (1) that a design should be user
centered, she might find it useful to know how to conduct an interview
(3), regardless of how she would give form to the object she is
designing (2).
Best,
Nic
If you are interested in my references for this, please contact me.
Sent from my iPhone
Den 14/10/2008 kl. 21.36 skrev "Nicola Morelli" <[log in to unmask]>:
> I don't like the term User-centred, either, because I find it hard
> talking about "users", I would prefer some different term. However
> this is another discussion.
> Concerning the question whether design should always be user-
> centred, I would agree with David that design is in fact very often
> "producer-centred" and possibly add that in other cases design is
> "designer-centred". In fact many design processes are still
> considering the designer, not the user, as the centre of the design
> activity.
> So I have my personal preference for a design activity that focuses
> on users (or customers), instead of being the mirror of the design's
> ego. But on the other hand "user-centred design" is not giving
> design any specific qualification to the design activity, beside
> that of not being centred on the needs of a company or on the ego of
> a designer.
> Nicola
>
> Nicola Morelli, PhD
> Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Design
> Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
> http://servicedesign.wikispaces.com/
> Blog http://nicomorelli.wordpress.com/
> skype: nicomorelli
>
>
> -----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 Parag Deshpande
> Sent: 14. oktober 2008 13:10
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Is design always user-centred?
>
> Dear members of the list,
>
> While I know that knowing users ( i don't agree with the term
> though) and
> their needs are important for design, I always question if it is
> necessary
> that that design should always be user-centred?
>
> If not, then what does it mean for the design process?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> parag deshpande
> PhD candidate,
> IDC, UL, Ireland
|