Dear Terry and List
Yes, I too tend to consider visual/graphic as peripheral to the core
activity of designing (i.e. researching on situations in order to improve on
them). To me they simply are means of communicating outcomes of the design
activity. 2D and 3D, as the expertise in draughtsmanship, have nothing at
all to do with "gathering information from stakeholders and defining
appearance of the final outcomes".
> On 7 April 2010 22:12, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > A question: Are visual approaches outdated in addressing contemporary
> > design problems?
> > Are visual approaches more of a hindrance than a help? Does the use of
> > visually-based approaches to design encourage design failures and naff
> > design solutions?
> > Contemporary design problems are multi-dimensional. They are
> > by having lots of factors, lots of stakeholders and lots of relationships
> > with other technologies. In other words lots of dimensions of design
> > considerations.
> > Visual approaches, however, are characterised by a paradigm of
> > understanding
> > shaped by 2 or 3 dimensions. When used to represent factors other than
> > obvious t3 Dimensions of space, they can only represent 3 factors of a
> > design at a time.
> > MY personal experience is visual approaches are often way too limiting
> > design of multi-dimensional contemporary design situations. Worse, visual
> > or
> > graphics approaches to modern design problems tend to force everything
> > be reshaped to 2 or 3 dimensions and to force a kind of thinking limited
> > 2 or 3 dimensions. This corrupts the hell out of trying to understand
> > complex design situations and create better designs.
> > I'm wondering if it might be better to see the role of visual/graphic
> > approaches as peripheral and predominately located at both ends of
> > activity: gathering information from stakeholders and defining appearance
> > of
> > the final outcomes.
> > Is anyone else seeing the same issues?
> > Best wishes,
> > Terry
> > ____________________