I must say its a great paper, though in the traditional academic sense. Something that doesn't drag, but comes straight to the point. Not quite the occasional 'light and humorous style'; but it does a less than cute 'play of words'.
Then again, most computer scientists are supposedly systematic in their own sense. Extremely logical in programming. Perhaps one of the main reasons why designers don't give fine or even acceptable papers is the medium of expression itself. If words were the preferred craft, then designers won't choose visuals and (2D / 3D) objects as some of the main means of communication. Not many designers are strong in languages. Perhaps this age old debate on how presentation of ideas be set for research will never find its true path as long as certain rules on research remains intact.
I like being concise. But to tell the truth, I don't like to adhere to strict sense of communication. I'm no electrical engineer, or a mechanical robot. I'm a creative person dealing with a wonderful and brilliant array of different disciplines that form my idea of what design is about. I must have logic and a high sense of order. Cute? Perhaps we could spice the paper up. Dull, never!
Best,
Karen Fu
On 2 Mar, 2013, at 0:12, Mattias Arvola <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Just for fun, I did a metaphrase of Roy Levin's and David Redell's paper "An Evaluation of the Ninth SOSP Submissions or How (and How Not) to Write a Good Systems Paper" to the realm of design (as in product design, graphic design or interaction design) from the realm of computer science. For me it was an exercise to see if it would make sense, and I think it did. I also thought some people in this community could have use for it, so I decided to post it here.
>
> Levin's and Redell's paper is still 30 years later highly relevant and we recommend it to students in computer science and software/computer engineering at both master's and PhD level. But the design students find it hard to make the transfer.
>
> Also, in this community, people are still debating wether or not you can do a rather practical design work and then report it as research, and that is exactly what we have been doing for ages in computer science. So people entering the field of design research from human-computer interaction and interaction design do not really understand what the fuss is all about. Making this metaphrase from Levin's and Redell's paper is also may way of telling people in this community to take a look at computer science and other engineering disciplines.
>
> How (and How Not) to Write a Good Design Paper: A Metaphrase of Roy Levin’s and
> David D. Redell’s Evaluation of the Ninth SOSP Submissions. Available:
> http://www.ida.liu.se/~matar/designpaper.pdf
>
> Best,
> // Mattias
> --
> Mattias Arvola, Ph.D., Docent (Reader) in Cognitive Science.
> Senior Lecturer in Interaction Design.
> Director of Studies for the Undergraduate Programme in Cognitive Science.
> IDA, Linköping University.
> www.arvola.se
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|