Terry,

When you use the word "mathematical", you use an adjective to describe 
the quality of the design. There is still a person there communicating 
what is this object, who uses it, and how and where to use it. Of 
course, you and I might be baffled as to what that thing is, but car 
mechanics won't. I think, we will as be baffled as to what to do with a 
Liston Knife, but doctors (who have the right personal experience) won't.

The mathematics do not do the design. The designer of the camshaft chose 
a mathematics equation or methodology in order to create their design 
artifacts. The person who drives the car is not its user. The person 
that will use the camshaft will most likely be engineer or factory 
worker who installs it in the engine. The driver of the car and the 
person who assembles it, or facilitate its assembly, work in different 
semantic layers of the car.  If the driver never sees, interacts or 
senses the camshaft, is it still there?

Looking at a camshaft, a person with enough personal experience and a 
substantial memory bank of how engine may work, would describe the 
camshaft's physical properties, and perhaps be able to lingually 
attribute what material it is made of very easily. They would also, if 
their personal experience allows them, recognize the artifact as being a 
camshaft and not a camera stick, or gear shaft, or the antenna. They 
would also suggest or refer to the quality of the camshaft and how these 
will effect the functionality of engine or the car. They could also know 
to which type of engine will the camshaft belong to and what other parts 
in the engine correspond with this design.

And of course they will know all this without having the designer of the 
camshaft speaking to them or explaining them anything.

The designer of the camshaft had to language several conceptual models 
before coming up with their final design. The principle that received 
most attention during the design process was the context in which the 
cam shaft will work, that is, the type of engine and car in which it 
will be installed. That had to be communicated clearly through the 
choice of shape, curve, harness and material. someone can see this 
choice and understand what they refer to, i.e., the purpose of the 
artifact and engine where it belongs to (v4 v6 v8 v12?).

Communication is a process in which we make sensory data meaningful and 
significant, to ourselves and others. When we use or create an artifact 
we do so according to principles like I mentioned. When we perceive 
sensory information we do so according to principles like I mentioned. 
This structure of thinking is innate (results from the structure of our 
brain and body) and therefore underlies all acts of communication - 
lingual and designed artifacts.

Yours,

Yoád David Luxembourg





On 6-7-2016 12:01, Terence Love wrote:
> Hi Yoad,
>
> I'm still wondering how it applies say to the mathematical design of the shape of a camshaft curve and the choice of harness and materials? How does the user (presumably the car driver) derive meaning from the design of those details?
>
> As far as I can see, semantics ands communication to the user doesn't much apply at all in these sort of cases (which I suspect is the majority of design decisions when you include all technical design disciplines).
>
> If you see things differently please could you explain.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoád David Luxembourg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2016 4:53 PM
> 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  <[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
-----------------------------------------------------------------