Dear Filippo
I like your take on the possible uses of patterns - to which I'd like
to add a comparison with theoretical provocations - if we can draw
attention to possible ideas we can sometimes distract ourselves from the
fixed ideas we have - provocations can open up a space for new ideas.
Equally, patterns, no matter how dimly discerned, can distract us from
the obvious - away from the known details - towards possible
combinations and variations that exist in the spaces between etc.
I also like to look at patterns as being forms of ratio so even just
setting out to look for patterns is already an advance on the fixity of
the given.
cheers
keith russell
newcastle OZ
>>> "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> 12/10/2008 8:47 am >>>
Mattias et al,
I'm a big fan of patterns, so I'm going to stop grading exams to
comment. :-)
It would be nice if there were "infrastructure" to validate patterns -
I'm
thinking here in terms of the infrastructure (and its costs) to
validate
anything else. I don't think it will happen any time soon. It would
have to
be a large undertaking - after all, what good is a pattern language
with only
a very few validated patterns?
And might we succumb to a variation of 'analysis paralysis' - not
wanting to
use a pattern till it's been validated up the yin-yang and back.
On the other hand, even as they now stand, I think patterns fill an
important
niche area. They give us something we can use /now/, in the absence of
truly
validated methods/techniques/whatever.
Perhaps there's an intermediate step. Imagine a system that tracks
which
pattens users are accessing, and some very simple buttons on each
pattern that
say something like "Was this pattern useful?" and let users indicate
coarsely
their answer. One might then mine that survey information and follow
up with
specific users, asking them to explain briefly how the pattern was
useful.
The resulting data could start the ball rolling in terms of looking for
trends
etc in how patterns are (successfully or otherwise) used.
...just a thought.
Cheers.
Fil
Mattias Arvola wrote:
> Terry, Chuck and all,
>
> Comment on validation of design patterns.
>
> I agree that it is a problem to validate patterns. Most pattern
collections (usually more
> collections than languages) tend to be based on rather sloppy
research. They are usually
> just documentation of what usually works in different situations.
Alexander's patterns (in
> A Pattern Language) often lack a firm grounding in evidence.
>
> To validate a pattern I would start by establishing that the field of
forces the pattern
> describes actually exists in the situation it portrays. Triangulation
of methods is probably
> useful here. Then I would try to verify that the problem is real:
that forces in the pattern
> actually are in conflict if the solution feature isn't present.
Finally we come to the tricky
> part: Validating the solution feature of the pattern. We could
probably conduct (field)
> experiments to see if it solves the conflicting forces or if (as
Alexander would put it) they
> spill over to surrounding patterns, but we seldom do. If we did, it
would merit the pattern
> two asterisks in Alexander's format. Instead, i think it is common to
base it on
> observations that inductively support the solution (this would merit
it one asterisk). Here
> we must remember that a pattern is nothing more than a clearly stated
and debatable
> working hypothesis of what we currently know to be the best
arrangement for solving to
> a recurring problem.
>
> Given that a pattern is a working hypothesis it probably should be
tested as one
> (experimentally). Building well-founded and evidence-based patterns
is like building
> theory: a constant flux between inductive and deductive research.
>
> However, we may wish to do inspirational patterns. Not meant to be
based on evidence
> of what works, but instead inspire people to find new solutions. Such
patterns are not
> evidence based, and talking about validation of them is probably not
the right word. Jonas
> L�wgren has written a paper on such inspirational patterns:
>
> L�wgren, J. (2007). Inspirational patterns for embodied interaction.
Journal of Knowledge,
> Technology & Policy 20(3):165�177.
>
> Cheers,
> // Mattias
> --
> MATTIAS ARVOLA, Ph.D.
> Sr. lecturer in Interaction Design.
> Link�ping University and S�dert�rn University.
> www.arvola.se
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|