Yes, I can. The design of logos, branding and packaing.
That is the most tangible example. I believe the cam shaft was the other one, depends how you look at it.
The role of the designer is to make the product understood.
Scientists desugn for eternity, designer for specific contexts and its stakeholders.
Onwards,
Yoàd David Luxembourg  

------ Original message------From: Terence LoveDate: Fri, Jul 8, 2016 11:07To: 'Yoád David Luxembourg';'PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related    research in Design';Cc: Subject:RE: Foundation and Instrumental Theories of Design
Hi Lubomir and Yoad,Its possible and easy to talk about or conceptualise about design activity from many points of view and theoretical backgrounds.The real question is, which point of view or conceptual frame is more useful in any particular situation?Mostly, I find myself designing things to result in particular outcomes.  Typically, I've found it  more effective to do that from a functional point of view and regard communication as a subfunction.Over the years I've designed across a lot of different domains (including documents and signs). While its clear communication often has a role somewhere in a project,  I can't think of any design domain or design project in which communication was either the primary or only consideration. Can you?Best wishes,Terry---Dr Terence LovePhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, PMACM, MISILove Services Pty LtdPO Box 226, Quinns RocksWestern Australia 6030Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 [log in to unmask] www.loveservices.com.au -------Original Message-----From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yoád David LuxembourgSent: Friday, 8 July 2016 4:47 PMTo: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subject: Re: Foundation and Instrumental Theories of DesignHello Lubomir,I think we are both frustrated from miss-understanding each other.In the meanwhile Kluas Krippendorff has explained his reply and its attitude to Terry and sealed his answer with:"I know terry to frequently refer to the larger systems that embrace the parts we talk about. my point is that we talk about them."I feel that we are talking about the same thing, only from different disciplines and backgrounds, surely there is more to design then just talking, but its the talking that makes the design."If we change the environment, the functional qualities change. This is a simplified and brief description." And this is something that we do as humans instinctively and primarily when we communicate:O P S T  can become STOP POTS TOPS and SPOT.  All words in the English language. (note: Changing the order of the parts of the artifact can also change its functional qualities)Take the word SPOT, and watch how it changes its functional qualities when we change its environment:/I can SPOT a red fish in the river//I think this is a nice SPOT for a picnic./And there you have one of the scale-able principles that allow for communication in every language, with any tool or artifact used in the cultures of mankind.All that you have said and described exists in design and designing. My only argument is that it builds on the structures of communication (which is as Krippendorff sharply points out - are taken for granted). The way we talk about things shapes our awareness and perception of them. As such "when we consider the artifact and its environment. If we change the environment, the functional qualities (of the artifact) change. This is a simplified and brief description."I believe that when we do have the time to seat and understand each other's focal points, which form our perspectives (as well the codes we use to describe them), we will see that we are looking at the same thing. Perhaps its different parts, perhaps not.The roles of language in design and what language can do in design cannot be left to hypothetical studies and exercises like semiotics. We know so much more about how language and design cognitively work that language's roles and effects on design and designing should be identified and acknowledged in the study and education of design as well as understood in design practice. That is how I interpenetrate, or look at, your last paragraph.No need to absolutize language and communication, you are right there. However we do need to consider them otherwise "we might miss the essence of things in many cases." Especially in the creative and design generating phase of the becoming of things, which is structural in its essence.With much appreciation,Yoád David LuxembourgOn 7-7-2016 17:00, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote:> Hi Yoad,>> I appreciate your profound analysis and extensive reply. I regret, but you have misinterpreted in most cases. Maybe because my reply was short and cryptic, maybe because you look at it from your own position (only), maybe for other reasons. Never mind. This happens often, we are human.>> I talk for a long time on this list that function is a relational category. So, all of your musing about fish and dog was excessive. You might have assumed that I believe function comes with materiality or so. In fact, function can be seen as a quality of the artifact, but only when we consider the artifact and its environment. If we change the environment, the functional qualities change. This is a simplified and brief description.>> I see great projects about language and design, about communication and design, how communication shapes design, the design artifact; the function as a product of communication, and so forth. However, all these topics make sense only if we consider them as focused studies of particular aspects of target phenomena. If we absolutize language and communication, we might miss the essence of things in many cases.>> So, at this time I will go short because of pending daily tasks. We can talk later again.>> 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 Yoád David Luxembourg> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 5:02 AM> To: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Foundation and Instrumental Theories of Design>> Dear Lubomir,>> Allow me first to correct the spelling:>> "Every man-made artifact is made for a purpose, not functional, but communicative - to coordinate and exchange meaning whether be it by spoken sentences or designed artifacts.">> No they are not separated, but functionality is facilitated by the communicative.>> The process of designing relies on our ability (innate from the structure of our brains) to perceive sensed information structures (Gibson's Ambient Light) as significant, which in turn allows us to refer to abstract concepts without a limitation to time and space.>> I am not rejecting the functional aspect, and I am not trying to pull the rug under your feet,  but when you speak of functional artifact you attribute functionality as a quality of the artifact. According to your second paragraph one might think that an artifact made for function within human culture can be understood and used by fish, and dogs and cows and every living brain or AI. That is not true.>> Engineered solutions - artifact made for function - are used to refer to the context that they have been designed to solve. In the process of their design, the designer focused on the contextual principle of acts of communication.  That context comes with role players - who has provided the solution, and who (person or community) will implement the solution - these are the principles of address in an act of communication. The party that will implement the solution needs to be able to recognize the artifact as a solution to the intended context, they do so by interacting with it and through interaction they perceive the physical properties of the solution, recognized the structure of the solution as belonging to a certain type of solutions, and refer with the solution to the concepts and contexts in which it is meant to be implemented.>> All this has to be planned and designed by an actor as to avoid any miscommunication, such as installing the camshaft in the gearbox.>> An artifact which is made to function, is made to facilitate communication between different parties as to how, when, and where it will function and who is the actor that will facilitate the artifact's functionality.>> To say that in solving problems our inner nature and urge to communicate is turned off and some mathematical equation takes over our brain is living in denial. When you use mathematics you use it to refer to or represent different parameters or situations in real life, thus, you are communicating (again).>> You define yourself as dedicated to the study of building users, I will follow this statement with Krippendorff's User Conceptual Models - which are not only what the user thinks and knows but also what the designer thinks the user can understand and learn. Building these UCMs is a process of conceptualization which is facilitated by languaging the reality of the user into existence - at least in the mind of the designer. You can use English or Mathematics as the language to do so.>> My response was initially aimed at presenting the unifying  and universal principles of design, and argue that no methodology can be declared as that. Again methodologies pace and moderate the use of language within the design process. But the underlying force that is responsible for designing is our urge to communicate and our ability to communicate. Our structure of thinking is innate in anything we create.> Because we use a phrase structure grammar sort of thinking to communicate, all our creations are acts of communication and are built and perceived according to that structure.>> As long as something is made for function, it must also and firstly be created to facilitate the communication of its function between its stakeholders.>> You will notice that many "functional" solutions don't really work that well, but users still know where how and when to use them and can refer to that context. The meaning of a "bad solution and it does not really work" that is attributed to the functional artifact during interaction and is created as result of a gap between user expectations and sensory data. The fact that we can refer to our expectations by using an artifact shows again why communicative is rooted deeper than the functional.>> You said:>> "That is why we make methodological plans, discuss our methodology, and make a decision what methodological tools to select.">> And the use of language facilitates all of this process. The goal of this process is to make sure the solution created will be understood correctly. What you really do is facilitate the user understanding of the solution, that is their understanding/UCMs of:>> What are the physical properties of the solution; what type ( structure) of solution is it; to what abstract concepts the solution refers to; who made the solution (maybe someone has a better solution); who is to use the solution (maybe some one can use this solution better), to what culture, semantic layer, or community this solution belongs to (car drivers or car engineers? cook or a surgeon?), and; finally, when and where or in what context to use that solution.>> To make sure this will all work perfectly means that the solution will work perfectly, and "That is why we make methodological plans, discuss our methodology, and make a decision what methodological tools to select.">> My opinion is that the structural principles and parameters of communication underlay designing, creating, and speaking, as well as the artifacts that these activities produced.> We take the essential innate role of communication in design for granted and turn to the principles of methodologies to root our designing. That to me seems unnatural and un-logical.> Denying that our ability to communicate forms the process of designing can be thought of as claiming that the size and form of our finger have nothing to do with the structure of our keyboard and its buttons.>> Sincerely,>> Yoád David Luxembourg.> On 6-7-2016 18:24, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote:>> Dear Yoad,>>>> One reason for our expression of ideas and arguing for ideas is to clarify our understanding and to comprehend what is going in our field. As a person who has invested a lot in the study of function (the study of building users), I am a bit perplexed by the following statement of yours: "Everything man made artifact is made for a purpose, not functional, but communicative - to coordinate and exchange meaning whether be it by spoken sentences or designed artifacts." I focus on "not functional." Also, the way you talk in your mail, functional and symbolic/communicative are separated. Your text implies (at least to me) that you see functional as utilitarian rather than symbolic. No problem with this as long as it is done as a methodological exercise.>>>> It seems to me that neglecting the functional in principle is a long stretch. Rejecting the functional aspect is too much. I can understand if you decide to limit your research only to the symbolic aspects, communication, and language. To claim that artifacts are not made for function and only for communication is a completely different idea. You can focus on the communicative function of artifacts and it role for human interaction and social life. But this is very different from what you say in your text.>>>> I will reiterate again: Some approaches have particular heuristic power and value in particular situations. They might be very productive and even the best in those situations. However, when we applied them to any problem, situation, or purpose, we are risking to make huge mistakes. That is why we make methodological plans, discuss our methodology, and make a decision what methodological tools to select.>>>> 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 Yoád David Luxembourg>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 5:28 AM>> To: [log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: Foundation and Instrumental Theories of Design>>>> Dear Terry, Chuck,>>>> Whatever the activity of design is, it relies heavily on human cognitive ability and neuro structures that allow designers to refer to abstract concepts with out limitations to time and space. The structures of thinking, speaking and designing are strongly linked to each other and allow designers and humans in general to do this symbolic reference through the creation of artifacts ( lingual such as text, or spoken language, and designed such all man made artifact that we use and interact with around us). Everything man made artifact is made for a purpose, not functional, but communicative - to coordinate and exchange meaning whether be it by spoken sentences or designed artifacts.>> artifacts that which their design does not facilitate human communication, end up being thought as meaningless or broken or wrong.>>>> Moving on, when we refer to a concept, we also invoke the relationship it has with other concepts. For example, the concept "to put" invokes role players such as who put something somewhere, object or item concept that is placed somewhere, location where the item is placed at or in, and so on.>>>> With every artifact or sensed information structure that we perceive (Gibson's ambient light), in the process of recognizing the object sensed we ask and answer:>>>> What are we sensing?>>>> What does it look like?>>>> What does it refer to or symbolizes?>>>> Who is it from?>>>> Who does it belong to?>>>> To what community of people it belongs?>>>> When and where or in what context can we use the artifact?>>>> This may seem complicated but every adult human, after years of training in childhood, builds a huge memory of experiences that allows them to answer these questions in less then 2 seconds.>>>> Designers, what ever the methodology, always structure their artifacts in a ways the enables users to answer this questions effortlessly as possible and to reach the (designer's) intended meaning evoked by the artifact.>>>> What design methodologies do is to moderate and pace the creation of artifacts through the exchange, collection, and circulation of information and the conceptualization of design concepts relating to macro contexts and micro details of the artifact.  To do so Designers language ( from Krippendorff's "languaging") their creation into being using the language that is practice in their discipline or methodology.>>>> Hopefully, you will recognize the (basic) structure of communication above, I'd be extremely supersized otherwise.>>>> Best,>>>> Yoád David Luxembourg>>>> On 6-7-2016 01:50, Terence Love wrote:>>>>> Dear Yoad,>>>>>> You wrote,>>> ' Communication and the structures that enables it between people (both in physical terms and semiotic terms) are the unifying principles of design.'>>>>>> Please can you say more?>>>>>> I'm interested in how what you wrote applies to engineering design or the other technical design fields.>>>>>> Best wishes,>>> Terry>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------->>> PhD-Design mailing list   Discussion of >>> PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe >>> at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------->> ----------------------------------------------------------------->> PhD-Design mailing list   Discussion of >> PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe >> at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design>> ----------------------------------------------------------------->>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------->> PhD-Design mailing list   Discussion of >> PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe >> at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design>> ----------------------------------------------------------------->> -----------------------------------------------------------------> PhD-Design mailing list   Discussion of PhD > studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design> ----------------------------------------------------------------->>> -----------------------------------------------------------------> PhD-Design mailing list   Discussion of PhD > studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PhD-Design mailing list   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
-----------------------------------------------------------------