Dear Terry,
doing fine - Hong Kong pollution is up my nose but going.
Not sure I was aiming to help in the project of defining design. I hoped I was aiming to extend the conversation about designing.
As a moment in the process of designing, the node called "design" is probably the least interesting and the one that is least in need of defining. The object, as pro-duct, is self-limiting at best and use-limited at worst. Whatever, it fails in its status as resolved outcome of a process that is ongoing, either ironically (rust) and/or logically (must be transcended).
Designing is a sub-set of intentionality best treated as soft-intentionality - that is the use-centricity is reciprocal and characterises the process, as it is understood. This might implicate other terms that can also fit within designing, like strategy, plan, technique etc. Disclosing the use is in-forming the use and re-forming the design and hence designing goes on - call it abductive and then we can start to keep open the process within its understanding.
hope this helps
keith
>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 10/15/08 8:34 PM >>>
Hi Keith,
How are you going? Is 'use centricity' a property of designing or a
property more generally of all intentional human activities?
In other words, how does it help define design? Or are you going somewhere
else with the idea?
All the best,
terry
-----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 Keith
Russell
Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2008 6:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is design always user-centred?
All designing is use centric
keith russell
OZ Newcastle
|