See embedded comments.
2009/9/13 Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
> thanks,
> jose,
> for amplifying my point. you are absolutely right.
>
> when a scientist designs an experiment to test a scientific hypothesis,
> they
> do design in the sense of creating something new. nobody can legislate the
> words they use in their literature. it entails displaying certain
> competences that not everyone shares, but it is done in the course of
> advancing science, not to make the experiment usable to others (avoiding
> the
> word everybody). this, i think is the crucial distinction between design
> that is not human centered and design that is.
>
Exactly. There are many design engineers (and more every year) who will
readily admit that they design their artifacts with the explicit and direct
intent to make them "usable to others." This is a systemic realization
creeping through the whole enterprise. While there are still many
practising engineers who work for huge multinational corporations who have
not yet recognized this, many, many engineers in smaller companies have.
Educators and researchers have too, and are taking steps to ensure that
future generations of design engineers.
> i think it is useful for the community of professional designers to be
> clear
> about what distinguishes them from, let us say, engineers who can calculate
> stress levels in beams, figure out the hardware of a machinery, or design
> the hardware of a computer.
This is a sadly narrow perspective of what engineers do. Some engineers do
this. Many do not.
> i am talking about particular kind of knowledge
> designers need to generate to make the interfaces between humans and
> artifacts work for their stakeholders. that knowledge is one of
> interaction
> between human cognitive and social abilities and perceived features in the
> world.
>
> engineering students do not generally learn about perception, have courses
> in ethnographic methods, social interaction, and how artifacts acquire
> meanings in use, which provide designers with the kind of knowledge they
> are
> most qualified to translate into artifacts that support human social
> activities.
>
This would have been true till recently. I remember this is how it was when
I studied "engineering design" as an undergrad. But it's changing. And it
will continue to change. And we could use the help of other design
disciplines - who have a richer history in these areas - instead of having
them tell us that basically we "should" not be doing this.
>
> it would be a mistake to downplay the need for designers to be able to work
> with others, understand they vocabularies. most artifacts straddle the
> boundaries of several disciplines, production, mechanics, finance, social
> science, especially cultural anthropology and ecology, and it is not
> altogether impossible for designers to do something novel with knowledge
> from these disciplines. but this does not mean that designers could not
> generate and teach their own body of knowledge and argue from this strength
> in cooperation with others.
>
> professional designers can define their own profession and in fact do so by
> how its is taught, practiced, and talked about among themselves. there is
> no need to chase the uses of the word design by all disciplines
>
> klaus
>
>
>
> -----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 jose
> luis
> casamayor
> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 10:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?
>
> Hi Fil,
>
>
>
> I believe..that Klaus did not mean that design engineers or other
> disciplines with topics included in Terry’s list do not carry out design
> activities, of course they do, but the purpose and design parameters they
> use are different. Klaus was trying to make the point that to try to
> differentiate them is important. I agree totally, as i have seen some PhDs
> in 'product design' that might well be from other disciplines, i.e.: design
> engineering.
>
>
>
> Industrial, graphic, interior and interaction designers’ design activities
> are user-centred because the purpose of them is mainly aimed at experiences
> (where human/user are involved) rather than function. Design engineers can
> also do this job, although this is not their main role, and therefore,
> usually should not be carried out by them. In the same way that graphic
> designers do not try to design the software of the programs they use, for
> this role there are engineers who are more qualified.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps,
>
>
>
> Jose
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Con Vodafone disfruta de Hotmail gratis en tu móvil. ˇPruébalo!
> http://serviciosmoviles.es.msn.com/hotmail/vodafone.aspx
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|