Dear Colleagues,
It seems to me that this discussion goes on and on partly because of different interpretations of a number of terms. Different industries have different traditions regarding the usage of particular words. The same words have completely different terminological functions. The mail by Robert Harland (below) clearly indicates this. In this discussion, graphic design was taken as the standard. That was one of the reasons I abstained to intervene earlier. The word "specifications" is used very differently in several industries and the related design fields. Let's take for example "educational specifications." This is in fact the design program for a school building. At the same time, Terry has grounds to say that design provides the specifications that guide the manufacturing of an artifact. We can also use the words/terms production specifications, instructions, blueprints (more specific and tangible), etc. In some industries, the production process is guided not by blueprints/drawings, but by prototypes/3D models. It is quite of a diverse world. Interpreting the words only from the perspective of my design specialty makes me jump every time I read these mails. Then, after thinking a second, I realize that the words are words and they become different terms in different disciplines. That is why I don't use the Oxford dictionary when searching for the meaning of a disciplinary or professional term. I use disciplinary dictionaries/terminological articles.
On a related note, I tend to separate the development of design specifications (or preferred outcome, etc.) from design, depending on the industry and type of project. I cannot expand more on this because this is a topic for a different thread. Terry, Ken, and several other colleagues already pointed to the ethical problems of developing design specifications/preferred future states. I focus on the professional problems. When the specifications are about usability, their development is an activity related to the realm and expertise of the social sciences/disciplines. In many industries, the development of desigh/usability specifications is intertwined with designing and is conceived as part of the design process and a major prerogative of the designer.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
-----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 Robert Harland
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: background vs design
Dear Mike, Terry et al.
It's not central to the discussion, but I'm finding it a distraction that "graphic design" and "communication design" appear to be used here to mean the same thing here. Unless I'm mistaken. To my mind they are different.
The former is a more established design field than the latter, has a tighter sensory focus, and therefore might be a better source for others should the wish to follow up the discussion. Others may be similarly confused and I wonder if we can be specific here.
For what it's worth, and in response to Terry's preference for "specification" to mean design, I argued on the list some time ago that specification is a perfectly good word for specification (e.g. type specification, print specification etc.). But in my [graphic design] mind specification does not mean design as a conceiving, planning and making activity.
Regards,
Robert Harland
School of Arts, English and Drama
Loughborough University
On 19/09/2014 14:28, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>3. I suggest we may be using the term designer inappropriately in some
>cases and some processes. This significantly changes how we see the
>different roles in communication design and the role of the prototype
>or art board. Carlos has pointed to this with the automation paradox
>and Don and Carlos in terms of distributed cognition. I wrote about
>this issue in 1996, I'll try to find the file or remember the details.
>
>snip
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [log in to unmask]
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Mike Zender
>Sent: Friday, 19 September 2014 8:46 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Cc: Paul Mike Zender
>Subject: Re: background vs design
>
>
>Point taken, these were/are the specifications of communication design.
>BUT I argue most of the items in your list are trivial to the design
>activity (all except "specify the image (also create the image) which
>you say is incidental but I would say is the most significant part).
>Graphic designers don't just 'specify an image' (pick a stock photo),
>they MAKE
>images: take photos, make illustrations, design symbols and icons. No
>one hires a communication designer primarily to work out the production
>specifications you list above, in fact production specifications may be
>handled by a production manager not a designer! The designers' work is
>to create a model of a concept that achieves an intended end, and that
>model may include original 'artwork.' The specifications are trivial
>having to do with manufacture, as you note, but manufacture is about reproduction:
>reproducing the prototype! Design is the process of making the first of
>the type, not the processor writing the specifications that guide the
>reproduction of the type.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|