JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  June 2012

PHD-DESIGN June 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Terry's 1,2,3 of design methods. Was 'Another part of theory of usability'

From:

Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 6 Jun 2012 20:48:57 +0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (286 lines)

Hi Martin,

My apologies if I didn't explain things very well. The picture I was
presenting is quite different from what you inferred. I'll try again.

Designers have to make many many decisions on different aspects and elements
of any single design. Each of those decisions involves choices between many
options.

The total combination of possibilities of different options for any single
design quickly runs into the millions or billions. Think for example of all
the different combinations  of possibilities of pantone colours, shapes,
fonts, images, positions, sizes, finishes, for example in the design of a
book cover.

Designers have several strategies for avoiding being swamped by these
millions of possibilities.

Designers use particular methods such as grids, colour combinations
(complementary, analogous etc), information hierarchies and learn to draw on
particular generic visual structures, design guidelines, historical trends,
genres, personal  and many other learned visual patterns and methods. This
enables them to make the design activity  manageable by reducing billions of
decision and combinations  (many of which would not work) to a framework
that they can feel free to creatively choose what they feel is  the most
pleasing composition.

A similar process is used for most designed outcomes in Art and Design
design practices.

The process of making the design manageable, however, limits the design
solutions considered (if that were not true, then one wouldn't expect the
possibility of 'new'or 'breakthrough' designs - which are typically  found
over time.

If instead ,one were to take the whole field of the billions of combinations
of different decisions and options for each decision, one would have the
whole potential 'solution space'  for the intended design. 

This contains every possible innovation and every possible creative solution
- including the ones that designers do not/cannot think of because they  use
the methods, knowlwedge and skills of design practice that e they have
learned.

The  full solution space can then be analysed in many ways - usually using
mathematically defined representations of design  criteria.

An interesting option is to select and remove from the solution space  the
solutions defined by the methods and knowledge that a human designer would
use.

This makes visible those  innovative and creative design  solutions that
human designers would not have thought of.

The solutions space analysis approach is difficult and time consuming. 

Its benefit, however, is that it reveals more creative and innovative design
solutions than are found by human designers using the design methods and
creative techniques that they have learned.

Best wishes,

Terry

===
Dr Terence Love FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
[log in to unmask]  Mob: +61 434 975 848

Dept of Design
Curtin University, Western Australia

Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Dept of Psychology and Social Sciences
Edith Cowan University, Western Australia

Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University, UK
===



-----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
Salisbury, Martin
Sent: 03 June 2012 19:30
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Terry's 1,2,3 of design methods. Was 'Another part of theory of
usability'

Hi Terry,

One of the joys of emerging from assessment hell is a chance to catch up on
these discussions. I hope you won't mind me chipping in but I am fascinated
by your proposed 1,2,3 hierarchy of design methods. I am not sure whether
this is something you recommend for everyone or whether it is just a
personal method of reassuring yourself of the pointlessness of 'creativity'.
Looking at these three methods, I would have thought that designers in many
fields of endeavor would have put them the other way round. 

I am copying and pasting your 'league table' below, but with my alternative
descriptions immediately following each one. I would greatly appreciate it
if you could let me have your views/ tell me where I am going wrong:

1. Terry's version-
Straight 'competence' approaches. This is where I *know* the  design
solutions. An example, I have 5 standard types of menu structure for website
designs, and identifying which one to use is dictated by the project type.
It doesn't need any guessing, I can immediately create the design. Lots of
design is now this way, particularly when design software has good solutions
built in.

1. Martin's version-
Straight 'competence' approaches-  or as we say in the business- 'clip-art
approaches'. I have a series of 'off the peg' designs from which I choose
one and impose it on the problem/ client. I know the outcome before I start.
Lots of design is now this way- it's not usually very good but it's cheap
and quick and won't absorb too much of my energy.

-----

2. Terry's version-
'Solution Space analysis' approaches.  I use  problem and solution
characteristics and formal methods to map out the design solution space and
design outcome behaviours. Some meta-analysis helps identify best solution
regions or instances.

2. Martin's version-
Martin doesn't fully understand the language here but he thinks it
translates as, 'I use tried and trusted mechanical methods. This should do
the job OK without stretching me too much'.

--------

3. Terry's version-
'Messy-guessy' design approaches. I use this bunch of  design methods of
association  for idea generation (e.g. brainstorming, ideas on the wall,
idea clustering, anthropomorpherizing)  to informally and quickly  identify
design solutions with some kind of way of choosing between them.

3. Martin's version-
I have to use my brain and think outside the box with this one. This can be
a bit scary and it will certainly take much longer than options 1 and 2 (and
consequently be more expensive) but is more likely to lead to a solution
that is fresh, full of personality and perhaps even innovative. I will only
be able to do this if I have plenty of energy.

------

Best wishes on a damp Jubilee Sunday,

Martin



Professor Martin Salisbury
Course Leader, MA Children's Book Illustration Director, The Centre for
Children's Book Studies Cambridge School of Art
0845 196 2351
[log in to unmask]

http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/ccbs.html


________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Terence Love
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 2:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Another part of theory of usability

Hi Gunnar,

Thanks for your message.  You might be right about the 'fall back onto'. It
wasn't something I thought about clearly as I was writing it. I can see that
anthropomorphism has several useful roles in design activity and use it
myself. What follows seems like a conversation we've had before - though
maybe it was just in my head!

When designing, I've a particular interest in ways of identifying best
solutions and mainly use three design approaches:

1. Straight 'competence' approaches. This is where I *know* the  design
solutions. An example, I have 5 standard types of menu structure for website
designs, and identifying which one to use is dictated by the project type.
It doesn't need any guessing, I can immediately create the design. Lots of
design is now this way, particularly when design software has good solutions
built in.

2. 'Solution Space analysis' approaches.  I use  problem and solution
characteristics and formal methods to map out the design solution space and
design outcome behaviours. Some meta-analysis helps identify best solution
regions or instances.

3.   'Messy-guessy' design approaches. I use this bunch of  design methods
of association  for idea generation (e.g. brainstorming, ideas on the wall,
idea clustering, anthropomorpherizing)  to informally and quickly  identify
design solutions with some kind of way of choosing between them.

If I know what I'm doing, 'approach 1' is pretty well all that's needed.

'Approach 2' usually provides the deepest insights and enables going beyond
human individual and group creativity and thinking. It also works on wicked
problems.

When I can't immediately identify the best design from competence and I need
design solutions fast and they don't have to be the best, or I'm feeling
short on energy or want to do something that's a bit more entertaining and
feel good,  I  use the 'messy-guessy' associative methods including
anthropomorphism. The associations are not valid in the formal sense. Their
value is helping me push my brain into thinking up stuff that I might not
otherwise have thought of while keeping me happy and feeling that I'm doing
something useful!

 For me, there is a sort of hierarchy 1->3. Having design competence and
knowing the best solution straight out is great but not often possible.
Solutions space analysis is effective but hard work and takes a lot of  time
and resources. Anthropomorphism and other associative methods allows me the
fun of  muttering to myself all sorts of personal experience stuff and
banging out ideas without much effort. It's enjoyable fast and effective and
creates lots of possible designs, but  doesn't mean the designs are
necessarily  any good or the best,  and it does mean hiding behind the
'creativity' banner to justify them!

That seems to be why I see using anthropomorphism as a 'fall-back' from
other design methods - it's part of what I use when I don't use the other
two approaches.

Is that  pejorative? Not sure - seems better to be light-hearted about it.
They all do what they do.

Warm regards,
Terry


-----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 Gunnar
Swanson
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2012 10:56 PM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Another part of theory of usability

<snip> I agree with the last statement but there seems to be a pejorative
edge to "anthropomorphic" here. (Maybe I'm just reading into it but "fall
back onto" sounded dismissive.) I wouldn't assume that anthropomorphizing is
always invalid for designers or users.

Gunnar
y

--
Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management
service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems
-- 

EMERGING EXCELLENCE: In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008, more
than 30% of our submissions were rated as 'Internationally Excellent' or
'World-leading'. Among the academic disciplines now rated 'World-leading'
are Allied Health Professions & Studies; Art & Design; English Language &
Literature; Geography & Environmental Studies; History; Music; Psychology;
and Social Work & Social Policy & Administration. Visit www.anglia.ac.uk/rae
for more information. 




This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the above named
recipient(s)only and may be privileged. If they have come to you in error
you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to
anyone please reply to this e-mail to highlight the error and then
immediately delete the e-mail from your system. Any opinions expressed are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or
opinions of Anglia Ruskin University. Although measures have been taken to
ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus we advise
that, in keeping with good computing practice, the recipient should ensure
they are actually virus free. 
Please note that this message has been sent over public networks which may
not be a 100% secure communications 

Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email management
service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems 

=

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager