Thanks Terry for clarifying.
I see your point now.
And, yes, as with most things, we agree. :)
On 7 September 2015 at 19:37, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Good summary although I feel you misunderstand my point. You wrote:
>
> > Terence Love: '> How can we design automated design systems to design
> BETTER than humans can?'
> > This version, it seems to me, focuses on the future rather than the
> present.
>
> My question is about what happens NOW rather than the future...
>
> It is based on a shift in perspective to understanding that we human
> designers are really not very good compared to what is possible. Our
> advantage as humans is that we can manage to design something, regardless
> of its quality, when no better means of designing and creating outcomes is
> available. One simple starter of evidence: the reason we have even the most
> basic ad-hoc design methods is that they result in better designs than
> humans designing without them. A second starter of evidence is that
> teaching Design History and design examples are regarded as helpful.
>
> This is a different framing from the human designer-centric framing of
> much of the design literature that limits the assessment of design to the
> standards and viewpoint of human designers.
>
> I feel one of the challenges for design researchers is to move beyond the
> human-centric view in which design has been written about and conceived to
> get a less subjectively-biased picture that will enable us to see other
> ways forward.
>
\V/_ /fas
*Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.*
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|