all:

sadly, "where indeed are we going?" is indicative of a non-designerly question.  it assumes that we are going anyhow without knowing where to and need to inquire which train we are on.

what about "where do we want to go?"

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 Karel van der Waarde
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Where indeed are we going ?

Ken,

Ok, let's go back to the basic question:
"Where indeed are we going?"

I would suggest to split this question first by looking at two 
different areas: education and commercial design practice. [The area 
I'm most familiar with is visual communication in a European context, 
so that's what I'm mainly looking at.]

** Commercial graphic design practice
In the first place: it is a profitable occupation in which a lot of 
people happily make a decent income. There is no immediate disaster 
looming and it is likely that most will happily adapt to new 
circumstances and contexts.
	However, there is a lot of 'visual information' that does not 
really work very well. (The list of examples gets longer, but to 
mention just five: credit card statements, election papers, medical 
packaging, mortgage contracts and tax forms). The consequences are 
substantial for both individuals as well as systems such as banks, 
democracy, healthcare, housing and governments.
	To come back to the question "Where indeed are we going?", I 
would expect that these areas require a lot more attention from 
designers. This will not replace current practice, but is an addition 
to it. Unfortunately, most visual communication designers are not 
well equipped to tackle these types of areas.
+
Looking a bit further, the current financial structure of 'a single 
commissioner' might need to be reconsidered. At the moment, the 
commissioner dictates the perspective and position. For the kind of 
work that needs to be done, this might not be the most appropriate. 
[Example: medical packaging. I'm paid by a pharmaceutical industry 
who needs a clear brand and follow all sorts of legal regulations. 
This position and perspective prevents me from designing packaging 
that is useful for pharmacists, nurses and patients and that might be 
environmentally more suitable. Unfortunately, pharmacists, nurses, 
patients and the enviroment don't pay me.]

So, the first two aims are:
- widen scope of practice by making sure that we can handle other 
types of projects.
- figure out a way to get paid without being forced to look at 
situations from a single perspective.


** Design education
If one thing is clear than it is that (young) people are very keen to 
study 'visual communication' in all its different formats. Most 
students are fairly happy and find some sort of design related work 
afterwards.
	On the other hand, there are some developments that severely 
hamper design education. (Again, I just mention five examples: 
changing staff/student ratio's, appropriateness of teaching methods, 
teacher education, examination criteria, balance in curriculum.)
	So 'where are we going?' is fairly clear to me. In addition 
to the current courses, we urgently need to develop whole ranges of 
alternative ways of 'teaching design'. Not only talking about 
'continuous education', 'internet based learning', 'group projects', 
'specialist courses', but - against the tide of educational cuts and 
increased bureaucracy - actually making them available.

The third aim is:
- to increase the available educational scope in all sorts of directions.

All three aims are risky, but I think that these need to be explored. 
[Or am I just years behind, and are all these things happening at a 
grand scale already?]

Kind regards,
Karel.
[log in to unmask]

>Friends,
>
>Clive's post really hit me. I feel very much that this conversation seems
>bogged down rather than open, limited rather than expansive. In a recent
>note on another issue entirely, a distinguished colleague commented that he
>hoped an event we were considering would not be as unproductive as recent
>threads on the list.
>
>I've changed the header in the hope that perhaps some new thoughts might
>come forward.
>
>Two aspects of Clive's post got me thinking. First, the idea of "two
>legacies of ignorance" is a sad but reasonable comment. Perhaps there is a
>problem with the ducks and rabbits both. The second is that Clive is
>pointing the way forward to a range of issues on where we are going that
>ought to come up in a robust conversation -- a large historical view that
>balances the slow migration of the past into the future together with the
>proposal of new possibilities.
>
>It would be nice to hear a few more thoughts on where we are going from a
>rich, integrative conception of design -- and design research. Perhaps even
>a few voices on the theme. If those ideas do not respond to a thread that
>seems to have bogged down, so much the better.
>
>As someone who has been lurking rather than contributing to the thread,
>perhaps I should not speak. As a reader who would like to hear from a
>broader spectrum of the field, I'd still welcome more thoughts and broader
>thinking.
>
>Where indeed are we going ?
>
>Ken
>
>Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
>Professor
>Dean
>
>Swinburne Design
>Swinburne University of Technology
>Melbourne, Australia
>
>
>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:06:36 -0400, Clive Dilnot 
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>As with the famous duck-rabbit illusion it strikes me that those who wish
>to see ducks (see terry below) will always see ducks--no matter if it is in
>fact a rabbit.
>>
>>In this argument Klaus is undoubtedly correct.
>>
>>What is un-scientific in reducing everything entailed in the phrase
>"human-centered design" to "styling" is that it refuses to see the real
>complexity of "interaction" which was always entailed--though never
>satisfactorily articulated--even in "styling." In other words, "styling" was
>always more intelligent (and engineering design largely less intelligent)
>than adherents of both believed.
>>
>>The tragedy of engineering design since 1840 has been that it is has
>sacrificed understanding of things-made for performative advance. This has
>given us technologies that perform, within their task boundaries,
>exceptionally well. It has also given us technologies that are profoundly
>destructive  in their larger consequences and costs.
>>
>>On the other side, those who played with styling intuited but did not
>articulate the nuance of that with which they were involved, i.e., things as
>mediation.
>>
>>The result is that in 2009 we find ourselves then with two legacies of
>ignorance, which those dealing with interaction design--which means of
>course the entirety of design since NO design is NOT interaction
>design--struggle to cope with. What we lack is adequate understanding both
>of that on which we operate (the artificial) and that through which we
>operate (the capacities that design deploys).  The splitting of 'styling'
>and 'engineering' or of 'language' versus 'operational praxis' is simply not
>helpful to advancing understanding; it repeats a set of conceptual patterns
>that one would have hoped that we would have grown out of by now. Evidently
>not.
>>
>>regards
>>
>>clive
>>
>>Clive Dilnot
>>Professor of Design Studies
>>Dept. Art and Design Studies, Rm 609
>>Parsons School of Design,
>>New School University,
>>2w 13th St.
>>New York NY 10011
>>