> On 26 Jun 2018, at 10:56 am, Krippendorff, Klaus <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
> Your post confuses me a bit.
Sorry to be a source of confusion. I was trying to qualify further the distinctions that Ken was making around the idea of designs being invisible and hence not subject to aesthetics consideration. I was suggesting that there are approaches to designing visible things, like some of our work, where we deliberately make the designed, that is artifice, not get in the users way. Hence making it, as a designed thing, ‘invisible’. But at the same time subject to Aesthetic consideration.
I’m not suggesting anything about whether or not what we do is a suitable definition for what a designer is. I only suggest, by implication, that whatever a designer IS—if such a definition is possible—we would be included. But that is a minor aspect of whaat I wrote.
I don’t call what we do a STANDARD. We have created a number of STANDARDS (9 in all) that we apply to our own work and share with anyone who visits our website. They are a set of criteria by which we judge the quality of our work. You can find details about them on our website using the link in my last post
I hope this helps.
David
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|