Dear Terry,
Again the particularity of English tend to blur your arguments.
The fact that design designates both a common human activity and a 
discipline allows you (and others) to do it. What you surreptitiously 
designate as technical design is nothing but engineering and as such 
should stay.
There is no doubt in what angewandte kunst is, for instance (there is 
the word kunst in it).
Design was a fancy word that the world adopted, but not to designate all 
types of projects. In Portuguese, for instance substituted "Desenho 
Industrial" or "Artes Gráficas". This happened because it simply looked 
like there was enough common knowledge to share in several arts of 
producing mass objects that, in education and professional live could be 
abridged by the word Design. Also Architecture is never designated as 
Design whereas in English its projects are easily designated as 
architectural designs. In Portuguese this would be a blasphemy.
One of the most interesting facts of this international dissemination is 
the substitution of Disegno by Design, but our Italian colleagues may 
have better ideas about it.
Cheers,
Edward Royal-Court
IADE- Creative University, Lisbon
4, Av. King Charles the first, 1200-649 Lisbon

PS: When, as Portuguese I play the Blues, I don't think that I might 
have the blues (be sad) or that I'm seeing something blue
Em 12-06-2012 16:13, Terence Love escreveu:
> To Martin, Robin, Francois, Derek, Gunnar and all,
>
> Thank you for your comments and insights.
>
> Martin,
>
> Thank you for reminding me that art-based approaches remain useful in some
> areas of design.
>
> I've worked across several areas of design so I come across many different
> approaches. It seems  helpful to be aware other design approaches are more
> useful in other areas of design.
>
> In your earlier email to me, it seemed from how you responded that you were
> thinking about  'solution-space analysis' in an odd  way.   My next email
> described it in more detail in terms of  a design situation (book cover
> design) in which art-based approaches have been more commonly used.
>
> Your reaction and that of Robin surprised me as you seemed to be arguing
> that the only way to design was via art-based methods.
>
> This seemed to echo the  literature in design which has had a parochiality
> in which authors in each design field have often seemed to assume that field
> and its methods are the  only 'true' approach to design.
>
> That's a bit difficult as there are a lot of very different design fields! I
> feel it's useful to take an overview of the relative balance of design
> fields. In  the best estimates I've come across (mine and James Moultrie
> from Cambridge Uni), the Art and Design fields cover around 5% of the total
> design work undertaken. The remaining 95% is divided between the technical
> design fields and other design fields that are neither technical nor 'art
> and design' (e.g.  education curriculum design).
>
> This balance  in design fields can be seen if you look at the design of
> (say) an iPhone or iPad in which the design work undertaken by Apple that
> would typically be associated with Art and Design (i.e appearance and
> interface) may be only about 1% of the total design work needed for each
> product.
>
> Recent reports of Apple's design processes that the design approach used by
> Apple for the visual aspects of these devices is closer to the engineering
> product design methods of the 60s rather than  'creative art'/'empathic'
> design methods. Perhaps others with experience of Apple could comment
> better.
>
> I understand the benefits of art-based design approaches in some areas of
> 'Art and Design' design fields. It's clear those working in areas of design
> different from 'Art and Design' are also aware of art-based approaches to
> design  and their benefits and shortfalls. It's less obvious those working
> in 'Art and Design' areas of design are similarly aware  of the design
> approaches used in other areas of design and their benefits and limitations.
>
> My earlier posts were intended to help bridge this gap.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> ==
> Dr Terence Love
> Love Design and Research
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
> Western Australia 6030
> [log in to unmask]
> www.love.com.au
> +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> =
>