current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?

[Ajdari]

Hello list members


The main question I was wrestling with these days was about the current
research trends in Design Research, mostly those research domains which are
being done in Ph.D. or Post doctorates.

About current resources for this question there was an interesting book
published by Board of International Researchers in Design ,BIRD, entitled
DESIGN RESEARCH NOW,  which put had some examples from TU Delft, TU
Eindhoven, University of Art and Design in Finland  and Politecnico di Milano.
However,  there are many fields such as affordance based design or mass
customization are not included in that book.

The value of this research would be that we could find out in which area are
we walking or who is with us as well. Moreover it could give us common areas
of research with other disciplines , therefore there would be more
opportunities for publishing.

I hope we could reach a tangible result out of this.

Best wishes
Alireza


Alireza Ajdari,  Ph.D.
Assistant Professor in Industrial Design;
University of Tehran,Iran.
----
Address : Enghelab Ave. University of Tehran,
Faculty of Fine Arts , Department of Industrial Design.
Tell : [phone]
Cell: [phone]

[David Durling]

On 11 Sep 2009, at 10:27 am, Alireza Ajdari wrote:

> About current resources for this question there was an interesting  
> book
> published by Board of International Researchers in Design ,BIRD,  
> entitled
> DESIGN RESEARCH NOW,  which put had some examples from TU Delft, TU
> Eindhoven, University of Art and Design in Finland  and Politecnico  
> di Milano.
> However,  there are many fields such as affordance based design or  
> mass
> customization are not included in that book.

As Alireza suggests, there are are several main fields of design  
research not mentioned in this book.

I was asked to write a review for Design Studies journal earlier this  
year, and my impression was of a number of worthy articles showing  
some forms of design research, but that the book failed to provide an  
overview of the diversity of design research as claimed. My experience  
with a number of research staff projects and PhD candidates across  
design, architecture and related education across universities shows a  
much larger range of research, and more innovation than the book  
suggests. In other words, design research is in a much healthier and  
developing state than one might imagine from reading this rather  
limited text

David
.........................................................................

David Durling FDRS PhD   http://durling.tel
.........................................................................

[Terence Love-2]

Dear Alireza,
Below is a list of the research areas that a sample of design researchers
claimed to be working in.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________

Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM

Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate,  Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: [phone], Fax [phone], t.love@...
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________

19th century literature and art
3D modelling assistance
accessibility
access grid
activism in design/cultural
adaptive expertise
advanced qualitative research methodologies
aerospace design/architecture
aesthetic
aesthetics of design from a philosophical point of view
aesthetics, research (by which I mean researching the theory of research)
Al in design process
alternative technology and innovation
analogical reasoning and design
analysis of design processes
analysis of language
analytic aesthetics
analytical techniques
anthropological theory
anthropology
applications and implications for studio pedagogy
applied anthropology
applied psychology
Arabic typography
architectural and urban education and theory
architectural design & practice
architecture
architecture/design: programming
Art and Design education
art history
art/design
artefact/textiles
artefacts (for generating understanding of the design space and for "use" in
a broad sense
augmented reality
bamboo: as a development resource and a future material for human use:
"post-mining human civilisation" or "post-hydrocarbon culture", an idea
under development in India (in some limited circles)
behavior
branding structures
built heritage
business
careers
cars
case study
case-based design
certification
children's books illustration
china
Christian
circularity/cybernetics
cognition and design
cognition/perception
cognitive engineering of human, technology interfaces
cognitive psychology / cognitive science
cognitive risk tolerance: conceptual and practical implications
collaborative design
collaborative design research
collaborative influences on the design process
colour
comics
communication
communication in design processes
complexity of design activity
computer aided design (systems and application)
concept generation
consumer anthropology
consumer perceptions
consumption
contemporary and media archaeologies
contemporary art
coordination and collaboration in groups
craft
crafts and design for development: critical tools for solving poverty in
India and elsewhere
creative processes and design
creativity
creativity and computers in design
critical thinking
critics
cross cultural design
crossfield between designers
CSCW (computer supported collaborative working)
cultural analysis
cultural analysis of design
cultural anthropology
cultural historical aspects of design
cultural product concepts
culture
culture and design
culture theories
customisation
decision theory and techniques
design
design & innovation processes
design aesthetics
design and branding
design and creation of economic value
design and culture
design and development
design and digital media
design and disability
design and emotion
design and ethnic groups
design and information technology
design and interpretation
design and marketing
design and material
design and metaphor
design and organizational learning
design and sustainability (not environmental design, please)
design and the body
design and the environment
design and the internet
design and voice
design as scaffolding
design briefing/programming
design cognition
design competence
design concepts
design construction
design consultancy business
design criticism
design development based on local cultures/heritage
design discourse
design education
design education of multilingual/multicultural students
design education: building new schools for sector specific design education
(crafts and bamboo)
design effectiveness
design ethics
design ethnography
design evaluation
design for accessibility
design for all
design for healthcare
design for sustainability
design for the people
design history
design improvisations
design in built heritage
design information (visual analytics)
design innovation
design knowledge & expertise
design knowledge and context-of-use
design management
design management education
design management research
design methodology
Design methods (e.g. methodic design, TRIZ, value analysis etc.)
design of diving equipment
design of learning with ICT
design of product/service systems
design pedagogies
design philosophy
design planning
design policy
design process
design process mapping
design reasoning
design representations
design research
design research methods
design research methods for designers
Design science
design strategy
design support or promotion
design teacher,
design teaching
design teaching (basic level)
design theories
design theory of information technology
design thinking
design versus research
design visualisation
design/product semantics
designer behaviours
designer personality
designerly theorization
designers
designing to improve comfort, safety and well-being
developing countries
development of physiological methods in design
didactics in artefacts conception and use
differences between words and images
digital art and design
digital design repositories
digital museums and archives
discourse analysis
distance learning (and web delivery)
doctoral education
doctoral training
Domain analysis
Drawing
dynamic interior environments
eco design
education
educational institutions
e-learning
emotional ergonomics
emotions in design
emotions in/and subject-object relations
empathic values
empirical studies
enabler
engineering design
enlightenment
environment
environmental design
epistemology relative to design
ergonomics
ethical experience
ethics
ethnographic methodology
ethnography
ethnography
Europe
evaluation
evolutionary approaches in / for design
evolvable and adaptive intelligent systems design
exhibitions
experience
experimental design & art
expert design behaviour and reasoning
expertise and design
exporting creativity
facilitation and coaching
feminism and design
feminism
form generation
formal systems (logic) in design
foundations for doctoral research
functional relevance and usability implications for design of technology
future
generative design
generative research
geometry and structure
globalization
graphic design
graphic design (design processes)
graphic design education
graphic design history
graphic design political
graphics/social
handicrafts
health and design (vulnerable populations
Hellenic Greek arts
history
history and philosophy of science
history and theory of architecture
history of aesthetics
history of industrial design in the periphery
history of mentality
history of visual communication
housing layout & density and passive solar design
human centered design
human factors and ergonomics
human failures and limitations
human modelling CAD systems
human-centered innovation methodology
ideological design, sub-cultural inspired design
illustration
image and text
inclusive design
industrial design
industrial design education
Industrial design research
Industry
information
information design
information processing and knowledge management in design
information technology
information visualization
innovation
innovation management
innovation methods
innovative design
innovative technology and accessibility for the elderly & disabled
integrated product development, methodologies and tools
integrating design
inter/multidisciplinary collaboration in design
interaction
interaction design
interaction design research
interaction design, specifically new media, mixed media and interactive
visualization
interactive media
Interdisciplinarity
interdisciplinary
interface design,
interiors and furniture and their 4000 years history/evolution
internet culture
issues connected to cultural sociology
IT enabled development with design
kansei engineering
knowing in design
knowledge acquisition (i.e. cognitive studies)
knowledge based engineering (capture and formalisation of design rules)
knowledge construction
knowledge development
knowledge exchange between design practise & academia
knowledge management
knowledge_for and knowledge_of
knowledge-based economy
Kondratieff's cycles
language and communication as related to typography (visible language)
LCD-life cycle design
learning
light
Lisbon
local design
management
management of innovation, design and NPD
market creation
marketing
material culture
material thinking
materials
materials and design practice
measurement of the amount of relativistic information
mechatronics
medical products
medical technology & innovation, E-health
mental models in design teams
method
method and process
methodological approaches in design
methodologies
methodology
methods & tools for concept development
methods & tools for idea generation
methods of design research
mixed-mode practice
multilevel psychological model of risk tolerance
multimodal-multisensory monitoring
national design policies
new industrial contexts and new design scenarios
new product development
of "public space"
ontology of artefacts
ontology
optimisation
outside the obvious fields of information design
participation
participatory action research
participatory design
participatory design (cooperative design space)
participatory design research
pattern and decoration
patterning
perception
perception design
perception enhancement
performativity, place, space
PhD in communication design
phenomenology
phenomenology in architecture, theory, criticism, rediscovered relevance
philosophy
philosophy of design
philosophy of language
photography image
politicians and business-organisations
popular
post-structuralism
practice
practice design innovation
practice-based
practice-based methodology
practice-based research
practice-led research
problem solving
process facilitation
process/methods
product design
product design and textiles
product pleasure
product semantics
product taste, visual research
product/graphic
product/service definition
professional software development practice
psychology of art
qualitative research methods for design
qualitative user research
real time rendering
reflection
reflective processes and methods
reflexive capability
regional culture
regional design
relation between digital and physical material, process influences, skills
needed
relational
religion
religion and design
representation
representation abstractions
representations
research
research and education (integration of theory in practice, research based
design, and design based research)
research community development
research management
research methodology & education
research methods
scenario-building in design
science of profession
science
semantics
semiotics
semiotics (and problems of user-research, reception research)
semiotics and discourse analysis
semiotics in/and design
sensorial interfaces
situations, communication technology
skiamorph skeumorph
social & economic development by design
social and cultural human factors
social contexts
social design
social interaction
social network visualization
social responsibility
socialness of artefacts
sociocultural aspects of design
sociology
sociology of design
software design
space and place
specific issues for re-examination, currently focussing on: the discourse of
beauty in the architecture studio
strategic design
strategic design planning
strategic planning
strategies of expert designers
strategy
student experience
studio instruction
style cognition
subject-object relationships in the architectural studio
supply chain integration
sustainability
system design
systemic design and services
systemic design
systems theories related to design
systems thinking
tacit knowledge
teaching
technical communication (drawing rules, icons applications)
technological and social change
technologies and processes of construction
technology and instruction: potential and problems
technology studies, mobile multimedia messaging, picture sharing
telepresence experience/telepistemology
textile art and modern technology
textile design
textiles
the aged
the application of perception science or cognitive science to design
the concept of research
the social construction of form ideals (formbild)
theory
theory of design
theory of innovation
theory/design
third world
timeless, -ness
tools for design
town planning
traditional textile arts
traditions
typography
ubiquitous computing
undesigned
Planning
usability
usability of information/user testing
user centered design
user centred design research
user experience
user interface design
user needs
user participation
user-centered design research methods
user-centred design
user-designer experience
value
value chain
values
vehicle ergonomics
visual
visual communication
visual culture
visual design research methods
visual studies
visual thinking
visualising non-geometric
welfare design
word & image relations
workshops (for generating understanding of the design space)
workspace

[Keith Russell]

Hey Terry

missing a few letters there

j = design and junk?

x= design for X (see Wikipedia)

y = design and youth

z= design and zines

not sure whether there are other missing letters?

cheers

keith

>>> Terence Love <t.love@...> 11/09/09 9:07 PM >>>
Dear Alireza,
Below is a list of the research areas that a sample of design researchers
claimed to be working in.
Best wishes,
Terry

[Jose Luis Casamayor]

Hi Terry,

 

The list you have shown have been obtained from a survey?

 

I am curious because i am not totally sure if some of the areas that appear could be included within 'design research', unless, we adopt the position that design research include all the disciplines that carry out some type of design process within their study and research; Then all the disciplines could be included?

 

Best regards,

 

Jose

 


 

> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:07:02 +0800
> From: t.love@...
> Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?
> To: PHD-DESIGN@...
>
> Dear Alireza,
> Below is a list of the research areas that a sample of design researchers
> claimed to be working in.
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> ____________________
>
> Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
>
> Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
> Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
> Associate,  Planning and Transport Research Centre
> Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
> Mob: [phone], Fax [phone], t.love@...
> Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
> UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
> Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
> Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
> ____________________
>
> 19th century literature and art
> 3D modelling assistance
> accessibility
> access grid
> activism in design/cultural
> adaptive expertise
> advanced qualitative research methodologies
> aerospace design/architecture
> aesthetic
> aesthetics of design from a philosophical point of view
> aesthetics, research (by which I mean researching the theory of research)
> Al in design process
> alternative technology and innovation
> analogical reasoning and design
> analysis of design processes
> analysis of language
> analytic aesthetics
> analytical techniques
> anthropological theory
> anthropology
> applications and implications for studio pedagogy
> applied anthropology
> applied psychology
> Arabic typography
> architectural and urban education and theory
> architectural design & practice
> architecture
> architecture/design: programming
> Art and Design education
> art history
> art/design
> artefact/textiles
> artefacts (for generating understanding of the design space and for "use" in
> a broad sense
> augmented reality
> bamboo: as a development resource and a future material for human use:
> "post-mining human civilisation" or "post-hydrocarbon culture", an idea
> under development in India (in some limited circles)
> behavior
> branding structures
> built heritage
> business
> careers
> cars
> case study
> case-based design
> certification
> children's books illustration
> china
> Christian
> circularity/cybernetics
> cognition and design
> cognition/perception
> cognitive engineering of human, technology interfaces
> cognitive psychology / cognitive science
> cognitive risk tolerance: conceptual and practical implications
> collaborative design
> collaborative design research
> collaborative influences on the design process
> colour
> comics
> communication
> communication in design processes
> complexity of design activity
> computer aided design (systems and application)
> concept generation
> consumer anthropology
> consumer perceptions
> consumption
> contemporary and media archaeologies
> contemporary art
> coordination and collaboration in groups
> craft
> crafts and design for development: critical tools for solving poverty in
> India and elsewhere
> creative processes and design
> creativity
> creativity and computers in design
> critical thinking
> critics
> cross cultural design
> crossfield between designers
> CSCW (computer supported collaborative working)
> cultural analysis
> cultural analysis of design
> cultural anthropology
> cultural historical aspects of design
> cultural product concepts
> culture
> culture and design
> culture theories
> customisation
> decision theory and techniques
> design
> design & innovation processes
> design aesthetics
> design and branding
> design and creation of economic value
> design and culture
> design and development
> design and digital media
> design and disability
> design and emotion
> design and ethnic groups
> design and information technology
> design and interpretation
> design and marketing
> design and material
> design and metaphor
> design and organizational learning
> design and sustainability (not environmental design, please)
> design and the body
> design and the environment
> design and the internet
> design and voice
> design as scaffolding
> design briefing/programming
> design cognition
> design competence
> design concepts
> design construction
> design consultancy business
> design criticism
> design development based on local cultures/heritage
> design discourse
> design education
> design education of multilingual/multicultural students
> design education: building new schools for sector specific design education
> (crafts and bamboo)
> design effectiveness
> design ethics
> design ethnography
> design evaluation
> design for accessibility
> design for all
> design for healthcare
> design for sustainability
> design for the people
> design history
> design improvisations
> design in built heritage
> design information (visual analytics)
> design innovation
> design knowledge & expertise
> design knowledge and context-of-use
> design management
> design management education
> design management research
> design methodology
> Design methods (e.g. methodic design, TRIZ, value analysis etc.)
> design of diving equipment
> design of learning with ICT
> design of product/service systems
> design pedagogies
> design philosophy
> design planning
> design policy
> design process
> design process mapping
> design reasoning
> design representations
> design research
> design research methods
> design research methods for designers
> Design science
> design strategy
> design support or promotion
> design teacher,
> design teaching
> design teaching (basic level)
> design theories
> design theory of information technology
> design thinking
> design versus research
> design visualisation
> design/product semantics
> designer behaviours
> designer personality
> designerly theorization
> designers
> designing to improve comfort, safety and well-being
> developing countries
> development of physiological methods in design
> didactics in artefacts conception and use
> differences between words and images
> digital art and design
> digital design repositories
> digital museums and archives
> discourse analysis
> distance learning (and web delivery)
> doctoral education
> doctoral training
> Domain analysis
> Drawing
> dynamic interior environments
> eco design
> education
> educational institutions
> e-learning
> emotional ergonomics
> emotions in design
> emotions in/and subject-object relations
> empathic values
> empirical studies
> enabler
> engineering design
> enlightenment
> environment
> environmental design
> epistemology relative to design
> ergonomics
> ethical experience
> ethics
> ethnographic methodology
> ethnography
> ethnography
> Europe
> evaluation
> evolutionary approaches in / for design
> evolvable and adaptive intelligent systems design
> exhibitions
> experience
> experimental design & art
> expert design behaviour and reasoning
> expertise and design
> exporting creativity
> facilitation and coaching
> feminism and design
> feminism
> form generation
> formal systems (logic) in design
> foundations for doctoral research
> functional relevance and usability implications for design of technology
> future
> generative design
> generative research
> geometry and structure
> globalization
> graphic design
> graphic design (design processes)
> graphic design education
> graphic design history
> graphic design political
> graphics/social
> handicrafts
> health and design (vulnerable populations
> Hellenic Greek arts
> history
> history and philosophy of science
> history and theory of architecture
> history of aesthetics
> history of industrial design in the periphery
> history of mentality
> history of visual communication
> housing layout & density and passive solar design
> human centered design
> human factors and ergonomics
> human failures and limitations
> human modelling CAD systems
> human-centered innovation methodology
> ideological design, sub-cultural inspired design
> illustration
> image and text
> inclusive design
> industrial design
> industrial design education
> Industrial design research
> Industry
> information
> information design
> information processing and knowledge management in design
> information technology
> information visualization
> innovation
> innovation management
> innovation methods
> innovative design
> innovative technology and accessibility for the elderly & disabled
> integrated product development, methodologies and tools
> integrating design
> inter/multidisciplinary collaboration in design
> interaction
> interaction design
> interaction design research
> interaction design, specifically new media, mixed media and interactive
> visualization
> interactive media
> Interdisciplinarity
> interdisciplinary
> interface design,
> interiors and furniture and their 4000 years history/evolution
> internet culture
> issues connected to cultural sociology
> IT enabled development with design
> kansei engineering
> knowing in design
> knowledge acquisition (i.e. cognitive studies)
> knowledge based engineering (capture and formalisation of design rules)
> knowledge construction
> knowledge development
> knowledge exchange between design practise & academia
> knowledge management
> knowledge_for and knowledge_of
> knowledge-based economy
> Kondratieff's cycles
> language and communication as related to typography (visible language)
> LCD-life cycle design
> learning
> light
> Lisbon
> local design
> management
> management of innovation, design and NPD
> market creation
> marketing
> material culture
> material thinking
> materials
> materials and design practice
> measurement of the amount of relativistic information
> mechatronics
> medical products
> medical technology & innovation, E-health
> mental models in design teams
> method
> method and process
> methodological approaches in design
> methodologies
> methodology
> methods & tools for concept development
> methods & tools for idea generation
> methods of design research
> mixed-mode practice
> multilevel psychological model of risk tolerance
> multimodal-multisensory monitoring
> national design policies
> new industrial contexts and new design scenarios
> new product development
> of "public space"
> ontology of artefacts
> ontology
> optimisation
> outside the obvious fields of information design
> participation
> participatory action research
> participatory design
> participatory design (cooperative design space)
> participatory design research
> pattern and decoration
> patterning
> perception
> perception design
> perception enhancement
> performativity, place, space
> PhD in communication design
> phenomenology
> phenomenology in architecture, theory, criticism, rediscovered relevance
> philosophy
> philosophy of design
> philosophy of language
> photography image
> politicians and business-organisations
> popular
> post-structuralism
> practice
> practice design innovation
> practice-based
> practice-based methodology
> practice-based research
> practice-led research
> problem solving
> process facilitation
> process/methods
> product design
> product design and textiles
> product pleasure
> product semantics
> product taste, visual research
> product/graphic
> product/service definition
> professional software development practice
> psychology of art
> qualitative research methods for design
> qualitative user research
> real time rendering
> reflection
> reflective processes and methods
> reflexive capability
> regional culture
> regional design
> relation between digital and physical material, process influences, skills
> needed
> relational
> religion
> religion and design
> representation
> representation abstractions
> representations
> research
> research and education (integration of theory in practice, research based
> design, and design based research)
> research community development
> research management
> research methodology & education
> research methods
> scenario-building in design
> science of profession
> science
> semantics
> semiotics
> semiotics (and problems of user-research, reception research)
> semiotics and discourse analysis
> semiotics in/and design
> sensorial interfaces
> situations, communication technology
> skiamorph skeumorph
> social & economic development by design
> social and cultural human factors
> social contexts
> social design
> social interaction
> social network visualization
> social responsibility
> socialness of artefacts
> sociocultural aspects of design
> sociology
> sociology of design
> software design
> space and place
> specific issues for re-examination, currently focussing on: the discourse of
> beauty in the architecture studio
> strategic design
> strategic design planning
> strategic planning
> strategies of expert designers
> strategy
> student experience
> studio instruction
> style cognition
> subject-object relationships in the architectural studio
> supply chain integration
> sustainability
> system design
> systemic design and services
> systemic design
> systems theories related to design
> systems thinking
> tacit knowledge
> teaching
> technical communication (drawing rules, icons applications)
> technological and social change
> technologies and processes of construction
> technology and instruction: potential and problems
> technology studies, mobile multimedia messaging, picture sharing
> telepresence experience/telepistemology
> textile art and modern technology
> textile design
> textiles
> the aged
> the application of perception science or cognitive science to design
> the concept of research
> the social construction of form ideals (formbild)
> theory
> theory of design
> theory of innovation
> theory/design
> third world
> timeless, -ness
> tools for design
> town planning
> traditional textile arts
> traditions
> typography
> ubiquitous computing
> undesigned
> Planning
> usability
> usability of information/user testing
> user centered design
> user centred design research
> user experience
> user interface design
> user needs
> user participation
> user-centered design research methods
> user-centred design
> user-designer experience
> value
> value chain
> values
> vehicle ergonomics
> visual
> visual communication
> visual culture
> visual design research methods
> visual studies
> visual thinking
> visualising non-geometric
> welfare design
> word & image relations
> workshops (for generating understanding of the design space)
> workspace

_________________________________________________________________
Messenger cumple 10 años ¡Descárgate ya los nuevos emoticonos!
http://www.vivelive.com/felicidades

[Terence Love-2]

Dear Jose, Eduardo, Keith ,Fils, Mark and everyone,

 

Probably a bit of history might be useful.

 

I started being interested in identifying the breadth and scope of design
research in the 1970s and 80s but it wasn’t until the 90s that it started to
be more easily realistic to scan what people were doing via the early
internet and the web precursors. There was a synchronicity in this and there
were many others interested. One of the best attempts was the live DesignWeb
survey in the mid 90s at the University of Bath. If I remember right, this
also attempted to grade different design fields in terms of activity
depending on submission frequency and also made a stab at identifying some
sort of hierarchical relationships. At the time, I was mapping things
manually. The Alison book of research supervision provided another few
fields. Also in the late 90s Design Studies published their keyword list,
which was effectively a list of subfields of design research.

 

By the late 90s, I’d collected together around 250-350 subfields. Ken
Friedman raised a public discussion on design sub-fields and I started to
put more effort into identifying them and at that point we reached around
600 subfields. About 3 year ago, Ken suggested we get together a group to
explore this in more detail. The group comprises myself,  Ken, Fils and MP
Ranjan (please forgive me and correct me  if I’ve left anyone out as I’m
full of a cold and the group hasn’t discussed things for a long time!). The
Wonderground DRS gave a great opportunity to revisit the idea of a grand
survey of design fields. Ken initiated it with Eduardo and Eduardo’s  staff
supported the idea and part of the Wonderground submission process resulted
in the collection of a humongous list of design research subfield keywords
from a very wide selection of the world’s design researchers. I combined and
cleaned  that Wonderground list with the previous lists and removed
duplicates.

 

In parallel, Fils has been working on an hierarchical model of design fields
and design research areas of scholarship – more details from Fils! Fils
published something peripheral to his work on this at Sheffield DRS
conference so it should be available from Chris’ site..

 

At the same time, over the last five year on and off, I’ve worked on two
other design subfield projects to identify design subfields according to two
rules: 1) There must be a significant community of designers/design research
practitioners, and 2) They must self identify themselves as designers or
design researchers. The first project is an historical review over the last
100 years of book titles with the term ‘Design’ in them in major
international libraries. This is substantially completed and has some
intriguing  graphs! The attempt was  mainly to look at the relative
trajectories of growth and decline of design publications in terms of three
categories: ‘Technical design’; ‘”Art and Design” design’, and ‘Other
design’. The second project  is a manual semi-systematic review of the web
looking for previously unidentified design subfields (e.g. ‘research into
the design of economic development funding programs in the third world). The
aim of the two projects has been also to try to get some idea of the flow of
development of sub-fields across design research.

 

At the same time, Ken and MP have been busy on their sides of things and
hopefully, we’ll bring it all together soon into a publication or two.

 

Best wishes,
Terry
____________________

Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM

Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate,  Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: [phone], Fax [phone], t.love@...
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________

 

 

 

From: jose luis casamayor [mailto:casamayorjose_luis@...]
Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 8:46 PM
To: t.love@...; phd-design@...
Subject: RE: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?

 

Hi Terry,
 
The list you have shown have been obtained from a survey?
 
I am curious because i am not totally sure if some of the areas that appear
could be included within 'design research', unless, we adopt the position
that design research include all the disciplines that carry out some type of
design process within their study and research; Then all the disciplines
could be included?
 
Best regards,
 
Jose
 

 

> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:07:02 +0800
> From: t.love@...
> Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?
> To: PHD-DESIGN@...
>
> Dear Alireza,
> Below is a list of the research areas that a sample of design researchers
> claimed to be working in.
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> ____________________
>
> Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
>
> Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
> Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
> Associate,  Planning and Transport Research Centre
> Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
> Mob: [phone], Fax [phone], t.love@...
> Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
> UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
> Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
> Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
> ____________________
>
> 19th century literature and art
> 3D modelling assistance
> accessibility
> access grid
> activism in design/cultural
> adaptive expertise
> advanced qualitative research methodologies
> aerospace design/architecture
> aesthetic
> aesthetics of design from a philosophical point of view
> aesthetics, research (by which I mean researching the theory of research)
> Al in design process
> alternative technology and innovation
> analogical reasoning and design
> analysis of design processes
> analysis of language
> analytic aesthetics
> analytical techniques
> anthropological theory
> anthropology
> applications and implications for studio pedagogy
> applied anthropology
> applied psychology
> Arabic typography
> architectural and urban education and theory
> architectural design & practice
> architecture
> architecture/design: programming
> Art and Design education
> art history
> art/design
> artefact/textiles
> artefacts (for generating understanding of the design space and for "use"

in

> a broad sense
> augmented reality
> bamboo: as a development resource and a future material for human use:
> "post-mining human civilisation" or "post-hydrocarbon culture", an idea
> under development in India (in some limited circles)
> behavior
> branding structures
> built heritage
> business
> careers
> cars
> case study
> case-based design
> certification
> children's books illustration
> china
> Christian
> circularity/cybernetics
> cognition and design
> cognition/perception
> cognitive engineering of human, technology interfaces
> cognitive psychology / cognitive science
> cognitive risk tolerance: conceptual and practical implications
> collaborative design
> collaborative design research
> collaborative influences on the design process
> colour
> comics
> communication
> communication in design processes
> complexity of design activity
> computer aided design (systems and application)
> concept generation
> consumer anthropology
> consumer perceptions
> consumption
> contemporary and media archaeologies
> contemporary art
> coordination and collaboration in groups
> craft
> crafts and design for development: critical tools for solving poverty in
> India and elsewhere
> creative processes and design
> creativity
> creativity and computers in design
> critical thinking
> critics
> cross cultural design
> crossfield between designers
> CSCW (computer supported collaborative working)
> cultural analysis
> cultural analysis of design
> cultural anthropology
> cultural historical aspects of design
> cultural product concepts
> culture
> culture and design
> culture theories
> customisation
> decision theory and techniques
> design
> design & innovation processes
> design aesthetics
> design and branding
> design and creation of economic value
> design and culture
> design and development
> design and digital media
> design and disability
> design and emotion
> design and ethnic groups
> design and information technology
> design and interpretation
> design and marketing
> design and material
> design and metaphor
> design and organizational learning
> design and sustainability (not environmental design, please)
> design and the body
> design and the environment
> design and the internet
> design and voice
> design as scaffolding
> design briefing/programming
> design cognition
> design competence
> design concepts
> design construction
> design consultancy business
> design criticism
> design development based on local cultures/heritage
> design discourse
> design education
> design education of multilingual/multicultural students
> design education: building new schools for sector specific design

education

> (crafts and bamboo)
> design effectiveness
> design ethics
> design ethnography
> design evaluation
> design for accessibility
> design for all
> design for healthcare
> design for sustainability
> design for the people
> design history
> design improvisations
> design in built heritage
> design information (visual analytics)
> design innovation
> design knowledge & expertise
> design knowledge and context-of-use
> design management
> design management education
> design management research
> design methodology
> Design methods (e.g. methodic design, TRIZ, value analysis etc.)
> design of diving equipment
> design of learning with ICT
> design of product/service systems
> design pedagogies
> design philosophy
> design planning
> design policy
> design process
> design process mapping
> design reasoning
> design representations
> design research
> design research methods
> design research methods for designers
> Design science
> design strategy
> design support or promotion
> design teacher,
> design teaching
> design teaching (basic level)
> design theories
> design theory of information technology
> design thinking
> design versus research
> design visualisation
> design/product semantics
> designer behaviours
> designer personality
> designerly theorization
> designers
> designing to improve comfort, safety and well-being
> developing countries
> development of physiological methods in design
> didactics in artefacts conception and use
> differences between words and images
> digital art and design
> digital design repositories
> digital museums and archives
> discourse analysis
> distance learning (and web delivery)
> doctoral education
> doctoral training
> Domain analysis
> Drawing
> dynamic interior environments
> eco design
> education
> educational institutions
> e-learning
> emotional ergonomics
> emotions in design
> emotions in/and subject-object relations
> empathic values
> empirical studies
> enabler
> engineering design
> enlightenment
> environment
> environmental design
> epistemology relative to design
> ergonomics
> ethical experience
> ethics
> ethnographic methodology
> ethnography
> ethnography
> Europe
> evaluation
> evolutionary approaches in / for design
> evolvable and adaptive intelligent systems design
> exhibitions
> experience
> experimental design & art
> expert design behaviour and reasoning
> expertise and design
> exporting creativity
> facilitation and coaching
> feminism and design
> feminism
> form generation
> formal systems (logic) in design
> foundations for doctoral research
> functional relevance and usability implications for design of technology
> future
> generative design
> generative research
> geometry and structure
> globalization
> graphic design
> graphic design (design processes)
> graphic design education
> graphic design history
> graphic design political
> graphics/social
> handicrafts
> health and design (vulnerable populations
> Hellenic Greek arts
> history
> history and philosophy of science
> history and theory of architecture
> history of aesthetics
> history of industrial design in the periphery
> history of mentality
> history of visual communication
> housing layout & density and passive solar design
> human centered design
> human factors and ergonomics
> human failures and limitations
> human modelling CAD systems
> human-centered innovation methodology
> ideological design, sub-cultural inspired design
> illustration
> image and text
> inclusive design
> industrial design
> industrial design education
> Industrial design research
> Industry
> information
> information design
> information processing and knowledge management in design
> information technology
> information visualization
> innovation
> innovation management
> innovation methods
> innovative design
> innovative technology and accessibility for the elderly & disabled
> integrated product development, methodologies and tools
> integrating design
> inter/multidisciplinary collaboration in design
> interaction
> interaction design
> interaction design research
> interaction design, specifically new media, mixed media and interactive
> visualization
> interactive media
> Interdisciplinarity
> interdisciplinary
> interface design,
> interiors and furniture and their 4000 years history/evolution
> internet culture
> issues connected to cultural sociology
> IT enabled development with design
> kansei engineering
> knowing in design
> knowledge acquisition (i.e. cognitive studies)
> knowledge based engineering (capture and formalisation of design rules)
> knowledge construction
> knowledge development
> knowledge exchange between design practise & academia
> knowledge management
> knowledge_for and knowledge_of
> knowledge-based economy
> Kondratieff's cycles
> language and communication as related to typography (visible language)
> LCD-life cycle design
> learning
> light
> Lisbon
> local design
> management
> management of innovation, design and NPD
> market creation
> marketing
> material culture
> material thinking
> materials
> materials and design practice
> measurement of the amount of relativistic information
> mechatronics
> medical products
> medical technology & innovation, E-health
> mental models in design teams
> method
> method and process
> methodological approaches in design
> methodologies
> methodology
> methods & tools for concept development
> methods & tools for idea generation
> methods of design research
> mixed-mode practice
> multilevel psychological model of risk tolerance
> multimodal-multisensory monitoring
> national design policies
> new industrial contexts and new design scenarios
> new product development
> of "public space"
> ontology of artefacts
> ontology
> optimisation
> outside the obvious fields of information design
> participation
> participatory action research
> participatory design
> participatory design (cooperative design space)
> participatory design research
> pattern and decoration
> patterning
> perception
> perception design
> perception enhancement
> performativity, place, space
> PhD in communication design
> phenomenology
> phenomenology in architecture, theory, criticism, rediscovered relevance
> philosophy
> philosophy of design
> philosophy of language
> photography image
> politicians and business-organisations
> popular
> post-structuralism
> practice
> practice design innovation
> practice-based
> practice-based methodology
> practice-based research
> practice-led research
> problem solving
> process facilitation
> process/methods
> product design
> product design and textiles
> product pleasure
> product semantics
> product taste, visual research
> product/graphic
> product/service definition
> professional software development practice
> psychology of art
> qualitative research methods for design
> qualitative user research
> real time rendering
> reflection
> reflective processes and methods
> reflexive capability
> regional culture
> regional design
> relation between digital and physical material, process influences, skills
> needed
> relational
> religion
> religion and design
> representation
> representation abstractions
> representations
> research
> research and education (integration of theory in practice, research based
> design, and design based research)
> research community development
> research management
> research methodology & education
> research methods
> scenario-building in design
> science of profession
> science
> semantics
> semiotics
> semiotics (and problems of user-research, reception research)
> semiotics and discourse analysis
> semiotics in/and design
> sensorial interfaces
> situations, communication technology
> skiamorph skeumorph
> social & economic development by design
> social and cultural human factors
> social contexts
> social design
> social interaction
> social network visualization
> social responsibility
> socialness of artefacts
> sociocultural aspects of design
> sociology
> sociology of design
> software design
> space and place
> specific issues for re-examination, currently focussing on: the discourse

of

> beauty in the architecture studio
> strategic design
> strategic design planning
> strategic planning
> strategies of expert designers
> strategy
> student experience
> studio instruction
> style cognition
> subject-object relationships in the architectural studio
> supply chain integration
> sustainability
> system design
> systemic design and services
> systemic design
> systems theories related to design
> systems thinking
> tacit knowledge
> teaching
> technical communication (drawing rules, icons applications)
> technological and social change
> technologies and processes of construction
> technology and instruction: potential and problems
> technology studies, mobile multimedia messaging, picture sharing
> telepresence experience/telepistemology
> textile art and modern technology
> textile design
> textiles
> the aged
> the application of perception science or cognitive science to design
> the concept of research
> the social construction of form ideals (formbild)
> theory
> theory of design
> theory of innovation
> theory/design
> third world
> timeless, -ness
> tools for design
> town planning
> traditional textile arts
> traditions
> typography
> ubiquitous computing
> undesigned
> Planning
> usability
> usability of information/user testing
> user centered design
> user centred design research
> user experience
> user interface design
> user needs
> user participation
> user-centered design research methods
> user-centred design
> user-designer experience
> value
> value chain
> values
> vehicle ergonomics
> visual
> visual communication
> visual culture
> visual design research methods
> visual studies
> visual thinking
> visualising non-geometric
> welfare design
> word & image relations
> workshops (for generating understanding of the design space)
> workspace

  _____  

Messenger cumple 10 años ¡Descárgate <http://www.vivelive.com/felicidades>
ya los nuevos emoticonos!

[Ajdari]

Dear List ,

Dear Terry, David and Mohammad

 

Thank you very much for your prompt reply, the point here is that we might
need most is to have a map of design research worldwide, to know Who or at
least Which Organization does What and Where. If you want to work in a
specific field of research with who can you contact or where you can
continue your work ?

As terry listed, there is a huge list of topics, however it would be more
convenient to know where does topics are being done. In which universities ?
which departments ?

 

Well I  don't expect an answer , I just wanted to mention it is a great
topic of research and needs collaborative work . If the book Terry with Ken
is preparing or the material David Durling is preparing , would cover some
aspects that would be great.

 

Even more practically speaking, it would be very helpful to know which
topics are hot topics of design research, there might be some topics just
for collaboration but there are no facilities or funds available for it
.However if a specific university works within some areas of design
research, they can also  find each other and collaborate, as an example if
in university of Art and Design Helsinki and University of Brighton work on
Design semiotics simultaneously , there would be a very good opportunity to
collaborate. I don't know whether such a picture is still clear for all of
us.

 

I myself am ready to collaborate with anyone who would like to work on this.


 

Alireza Ajdari,  Ph.D.

Assistant Professor in Industrial Design;

University of Tehran,Iran.

----

Address : Enghelab Ave. University of Tehran,

Faculty of Fine Arts , Department of Industrial Design.

Tell : [phone]

Cell: [phone]

 

[eduardo corte-real]

Hi Terry,

My note to you was off-list, but thank you anyway for the acknowledgment
of one of wonderground’s hardiest task: to map the field(or territory)
trying to make a “geography” of design research without leaving any
deserts behind. Since I read recently that from the four DRS “modern”
international conferences only Wonderground was not “influential” I must
thank you for the reference.

Anyway, for programme purposes we had to group papers in categories. As
I wrote in the abstract book the groups were: “Theory and Philosophy,
Users Studies, Identity Studies and Architecture (from Interiors to
Landscape) corresponding, in total, to almost two thirds of the
conference. Three medium sized groups: Strategic Design, Digital Design
and Sustainability Studies corresponding to less than one fourth of the
conference; finally, the exquisite small groups of History and
Engineering, corresponding roughly to ten per cent. We decided to dilute
a track of Design Education in the others since, in the end, all is
related with education.” (I hope that this helps, Alireza. I must add
that both Design History and Engineering Design have their own forums so
you shouldn’t think that they are weak trends).

 

 

As for your book survey, Terry, may I suggest that you should concentrate on books not written in English. That would give you a clearer picture of what design is (globally understood) without the “noise” of other meanings for design in English.

I give you an example: In Portuguese a book about “intelligent design” would never have in its title the word “Design”.

 

Also I’ve collected “Shakespeare and Design”, “Swift and Design” and “Jane Austen and Design” in which is evident the use of design in English with other meanings other that a projectual activity.

 

Cheers,

 

Eduardo



>  

[Klaus Krippendorff]

about terry's long list of design research.

superficially, such a list seems overwhelming. it gives the impression that
most of us have no clue what is going on outside of our particular
interests.  this might well be true, but not particularly helpful.

i would suggest his list is more about the use of the two WORDS "design" and
"research," not about the practices we seek to inform by inquiries.  to
narrow our area down to what professional designers -- not engineers (who
design technically functioning mechanisms), not scientist (who design
experiments and questionnaires), not economists (who design mathematical
equations and financial products) -- do, i would say that design is and
should be fundamentally human-centered, be concerned with all kinds of
(individual and cultural) interfaces between humans and their artifacts, be
they informative/appreciative (graphic, and artistic), interactively
manipulable (usable), consumable, or organizational (like pursuing a design
project).

we should not let us be sidetracked by other professions' use of the word
design.  we don't own that word, but we will not advance our practices by
thinking we can embrace everyone who uses it.

klaus


-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of Eduardo
Corte Real
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:56 AM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?

Hi Terry,

My note to you was off-list, but thank you anyway for the acknowledgment of
one of wonderground's hardiest task: to map the field(or territory) trying
to make a "geography" of design research without leaving any deserts behind.
Since I read recently that from the four DRS "modern"
international conferences only Wonderground was not "influential" I must
thank you for the reference.

Anyway, for programme purposes we had to group papers in categories. As I
wrote in the abstract book the groups were: "Theory and Philosophy, Users
Studies, Identity Studies and Architecture (from Interiors to
Landscape) corresponding, in total, to almost two thirds of the conference.
Three medium sized groups: Strategic Design, Digital Design and
Sustainability Studies corresponding to less than one fourth of the
conference; finally, the exquisite small groups of History and Engineering,
corresponding roughly to ten per cent. We decided to dilute a track of
Design Education in the others since, in the end, all is related with
education." (I hope that this helps, Alireza. I must add that both Design
History and Engineering Design have their own forums so you shouldn't think
that they are weak trends).

 

 

As for your book survey, Terry, may I suggest that you should concentrate on
books not written in English. That would give you a clearer picture of what
design is (globally understood) without the "noise" of other meanings for
design in English.

I give you an example: In Portuguese a book about "intelligent design" would
never have in its title the word "Design".

 

Also I've collected "Shakespeare and Design", "Swift and Design" and "Jane
Austen and Design" in which is evident the use of design in English with
other meanings other that a projectual activity.

 

Cheers,

 

Eduardo



>  

[Filippo A. Salustri]

Klaus,
A couple of points.

1. To say that engineering designers are not concerned with
human-centredness is naive and out of date.  Sure, this was certainly the
case in the past.  And sure, to this day, not every engineering designer
works in a human-centred way.  But there are more and more of us moving
toward the recognition that our products are used by people and that
engineers have A LOT to contribute to that interface, and that to do this
well, we MUST become human centred in our ways.

2. I don't mind if you take design as being fundamentally human-centred.
But I also expect you to accept that I take design to be centred in whatever
way is best suited to the situation.

3. While I agree we should not be side-tracked by other "professions" use of
the word design, I would wager that most of the terms used in Terry's list
came from people who would be pretty well qualified to call themselves
designers (by my sense of designing).  I can see that if you think design
excludes things not human-centred, then that would have implications on who
you'd say was a designer and therefore entitled to use the word.  But the
boundary between what is clearly designing and what isn't is rather thick,
and we really should make allowances for that thick boundary layer (nice
engineering analogy there) so long as there are so many disparate yet
equally reasonable views on the matter.

Cheers.
Fil

2009/9/12 Klaus Krippendorff <kkrippendorff@...>

> about terry's long list of design research.
>
> superficially, such a list seems overwhelming. it gives the impression that
> most of us have no clue what is going on outside of our particular
> interests.  this might well be true, but not particularly helpful.
>
> i would suggest his list is more about the use of the two WORDS "design"
> and
> "research," not about the practices we seek to inform by inquiries.  to
> narrow our area down to what professional designers -- not engineers (who
> design technically functioning mechanisms), not scientist (who design
> experiments and questionnaires), not economists (who design mathematical
> equations and financial products) -- do, i would say that design is and
> should be fundamentally human-centered, be concerned with all kinds of
> (individual and cultural) interfaces between humans and their artifacts, be
> they informative/appreciative (graphic, and artistic), interactively
> manipulable (usable), consumable, or organizational (like pursuing a design
> project).
>
> we should not let us be sidetracked by other professions' use of the word
> design.  we don't own that word, but we will not advance our practices by
> thinking we can embrace everyone who uses it.
>
> klaus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of Eduardo
> Corte Real
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:56 AM
> To: PHD-DESIGN@...
> Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?
>
> Hi Terry,
>
> My note to you was off-list, but thank you anyway for the acknowledgment of
> one of wonderground's hardiest task: to map the field(or territory) trying
> to make a "geography" of design research without leaving any deserts
> behind.
> Since I read recently that from the four DRS "modern"
> international conferences only Wonderground was not "influential" I must
> thank you for the reference.
>
> Anyway, for programme purposes we had to group papers in categories. As I
> wrote in the abstract book the groups were: "Theory and Philosophy, Users
> Studies, Identity Studies and Architecture (from Interiors to
> Landscape) corresponding, in total, to almost two thirds of the conference.
> Three medium sized groups: Strategic Design, Digital Design and
> Sustainability Studies corresponding to less than one fourth of the
> conference; finally, the exquisite small groups of History and Engineering,
> corresponding roughly to ten per cent. We decided to dilute a track of
> Design Education in the others since, in the end, all is related with
> education." (I hope that this helps, Alireza. I must add that both Design
> History and Engineering Design have their own forums so you shouldn't think
> that they are weak trends).
>
>
>
>
>
> As for your book survey, Terry, may I suggest that you should concentrate
> on
> books not written in English. That would give you a clearer picture of what
> design is (globally understood) without the "noise" of other meanings for
> design in English.
>
> I give you an example: In Portuguese a book about "intelligent design"
> would
> never have in its title the word "Design".
>
>
>
> Also I've collected "Shakespeare and Design", "Swift and Design" and "Jane
> Austen and Design" in which is evident the use of design in English with
> other meanings other that a projectual activity.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Eduardo
>
>
>
> >
>

--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: [phone] ext 7749
Fax: [phone]
Email: salustri@...
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/

[Jose Luis Casamayor]

Hi Fil,

 

I believe..that Klaus did not mean that design engineers or other disciplines with topics included in Terry’s list do not carry out design activities, of course they do, but the purpose and design parameters they use are different. Klaus was trying to make the point that to try to differentiate them is important. I agree totally, as i have seen some PhDs in 'product design' that might well be from other disciplines, i.e.: design engineering.

 

Industrial, graphic, interior and interaction designers’ design activities are user-centred because the purpose of them is mainly aimed at experiences (where human/user are involved) rather than function. Design engineers can also do this job, although this is not their main role, and therefore, usually should not be carried out by them. In the same way that graphic designers do not try to design the software of the programs they use, for this role there are engineers who are more qualified.

 

I hope this helps,

 

Jose

_________________________________________________________________
Con Vodafone disfruta de Hotmail gratis en tu móvil. ¡Pruébalo!
http://serviciosmoviles.es.msn.com/hotmail/vodafone.aspx

[Klaus Krippendorff]

thanks,
jose,
for amplifying my point.  you are absolutely right.  

when a scientist designs an experiment to test a scientific hypothesis, they
do design in the sense of creating something new. nobody can legislate the
words they use in their literature.  it entails displaying certain
competences that not everyone shares, but it is done in the course of
advancing science, not to make the experiment usable to others (avoiding the
word everybody).  this, i think is the crucial distinction between design
that is not human centered and design that is.

i think it is useful for the community of professional designers to be clear
about what distinguishes them from, let us say, engineers who can calculate
stress levels in beams, figure out the hardware of a machinery, or design
the hardware of a computer.  i am talking about particular kind of knowledge
designers need to generate to make the interfaces between humans and
artifacts work for their stakeholders.  that knowledge is one of interaction
between human cognitive and social abilities and perceived features in the
world.

engineering students do not generally learn about perception, have courses
in ethnographic methods, social interaction, and how artifacts acquire
meanings in use, which provide designers with the kind of knowledge they are
most qualified to translate into artifacts that support human social
activities.

it would be a mistake to downplay the need for designers to be able to work
with others, understand they vocabularies.  most artifacts straddle the
boundaries of several disciplines, production, mechanics, finance, social
science, especially cultural anthropology and ecology, and it is not
altogether impossible for designers to do something novel with knowledge
from these disciplines.  but this does not mean that designers could not
generate and teach their own body of knowledge and argue from this strength
in cooperation with others.

professional designers can define their own profession and in fact do so by
how its is taught, practiced, and talked about among themselves.  there is
no need to chase the uses of the word design by all disciplines

klaus

 

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of jose luis
casamayor
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 10:00 PM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?

Hi Fil,

 

I believe..that Klaus did not mean that design engineers or other
disciplines with topics included in Terry’s list do not carry out design
activities, of course they do, but the purpose and design parameters they
use are different. Klaus was trying to make the point that to try to
differentiate them is important. I agree totally, as i have seen some PhDs
in 'product design' that might well be from other disciplines, i.e.: design
engineering.

 

Industrial, graphic, interior and interaction designers’ design activities
are user-centred because the purpose of them is mainly aimed at experiences
(where human/user are involved) rather than function. Design engineers can
also do this job, although this is not their main role, and therefore,
usually should not be carried out by them. In the same way that graphic
designers do not try to design the software of the programs they use, for
this role there are engineers who are more qualified.

 

I hope this helps,

 

Jose

_________________________________________________________________
Con Vodafone disfruta de Hotmail gratis en tu móvil. ¡Pruébalo!
http://serviciosmoviles.es.msn.com/hotmail/vodafone.aspx

[Filippo A. Salustri]

Jose,

You made the same mistake Klaus did.  You wrote "Design engineers can also
do this job, although this is not their main role, and therefore, usually
should not be carried out by them."  I agree with the 1st & 2nd clauses, but
the conclusion (after the 'therefore') doesn't follow at all.  It may be
academically convenient to partition the typical responsibilities of one
kind or another of designer, but in practise, I will not accept that a
designer's disciplinary affiliation "should" (your word) prevent him/her
from contributing substantively to design activities occurring in some other
discipline.  I have seen this happen in real life often enough; the
interloper's input has been valuable often enough to convince me there is
not necessary reason to exclude them just because their background is
inappropriate by anyone's measure.

I'm okay with saying something like "Design engineers can also do this job,
although this is not their main role, and this may explain why they usually
do not carry them out in practise."  This is a statement of how things are.
Using "should" makes me think you're saying this is how it's supposed to
be.  And that's where I disagree.

I'm fine with differentiating between design activities.  But saying that
one or another of us "should not" do one thing or another is a value
judgement I will resist absolutely, unless properly supported by an
undeniable argument.  Which is also lacking in this case.

Cheers.
Fil

2009/9/12 jose luis casamayor <casamayorjose_luis@...>

>
> Hi Fil,
>
> I believe..that Klaus did not mean that design engineers or other
> disciplines with topics included in Terry’s list do not carry out design
> activities, of course they do, but the purpose and design parameters they
> use are different. Klaus was trying to make the point that to try to
> differentiate them is important. I agree totally, as i have seen some PhDs
> in 'product design' that might well be from other disciplines, i.e.: design
> engineering.
>
> Industrial, graphic, interior and interaction designers’ design activities
> are user-centred because the purpose of them is mainly aimed at experiences
> (where human/user are involved) rather than function. Design engineers can
> also do this job, although this is not their main role, and therefore,
> usually should not be carried out by them. In the same way that graphic
> designers do not try to design the software of the programs they use, for
> this role there are engineers who are more qualified.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Jose
>
> ------------------------------
> Hay tantos ordenadores como personas. ¡Descubre ahora cuál eres tú!<http://www.quepceres.com/>
>

--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: [phone] ext 7749
Fax: [phone]
Email: salustri@...
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/

[Filippo A. Salustri]

See embedded comments.

2009/9/13 Klaus Krippendorff <kkrippendorff@...>

> thanks,
> jose,
> for amplifying my point.  you are absolutely right.
>
> when a scientist designs an experiment to test a scientific hypothesis,
> they
> do design in the sense of creating something new. nobody can legislate the
> words they use in their literature.  it entails displaying certain
> competences that not everyone shares, but it is done in the course of
> advancing science, not to make the experiment usable to others (avoiding
> the
> word everybody).  this, i think is the crucial distinction between design
> that is not human centered and design that is.
>

Exactly.  There are many design engineers (and more every year) who will
readily admit that they design their artifacts with the explicit and direct
intent to make them "usable to others."  This is a systemic realization
creeping through the whole enterprise.  While there are still many
practising engineers who work for huge multinational corporations who have
not yet recognized this, many, many engineers in smaller companies have.
Educators and researchers have too, and are taking steps to ensure that
future generations of design engineers.


> i think it is useful for the community of professional designers to be
> clear
> about what distinguishes them from, let us say, engineers who can calculate
> stress levels in beams, figure out the hardware of a machinery, or design
> the hardware of a computer.


This is a sadly narrow perspective of what engineers do.  Some engineers do
this.  Many do not.

> i am talking about particular kind of knowledge
> designers need to generate to make the interfaces between humans and
> artifacts work for their stakeholders.  that knowledge is one of
> interaction
> between human cognitive and social abilities and perceived features in the
> world.
>
> engineering students do not generally learn about perception, have courses
> in ethnographic methods, social interaction, and how artifacts acquire
> meanings in use, which provide designers with the kind of knowledge they
> are
> most qualified to translate into artifacts that support human social
> activities.
>

This would have been true till recently.  I remember this is how it was when
I studied "engineering design" as an undergrad.  But it's changing.  And it
will continue to change.  And we could use the help of other design
disciplines - who have a richer history in these areas - instead of having
them tell us that basically we "should" not be doing this.

>
> it would be a mistake to downplay the need for designers to be able to work
> with others, understand they vocabularies.  most artifacts straddle the
> boundaries of several disciplines, production, mechanics, finance, social
> science, especially cultural anthropology and ecology, and it is not
> altogether impossible for designers to do something novel with knowledge
> from these disciplines.  but this does not mean that designers could not
> generate and teach their own body of knowledge and argue from this strength
> in cooperation with others.
>
> professional designers can define their own profession and in fact do so by
> how its is taught, practiced, and talked about among themselves.  there is
> no need to chase the uses of the word design by all disciplines
>
> klaus
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of jose
> luis
> casamayor
> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 10:00 PM
> To: PHD-DESIGN@...
> Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?
>
> Hi Fil,
>
>
>
> I believe..that Klaus did not mean that design engineers or other
> disciplines with topics included in Terry’s list do not carry out design
> activities, of course they do, but the purpose and design parameters they
> use are different. Klaus was trying to make the point that to try to
> differentiate them is important. I agree totally, as i have seen some PhDs
> in 'product design' that might well be from other disciplines, i.e.: design
> engineering.
>
>
>
> Industrial, graphic, interior and interaction designers’ design activities
> are user-centred because the purpose of them is mainly aimed at experiences
> (where human/user are involved) rather than function. Design engineers can
> also do this job, although this is not their main role, and therefore,
> usually should not be carried out by them. In the same way that graphic
> designers do not try to design the software of the programs they use, for
> this role there are engineers who are more qualified.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps,
>
>
>
> Jose
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Con Vodafone disfruta de Hotmail gratis en tu móvil. ¡Pruébalo!
> http://serviciosmoviles.es.msn.com/hotmail/vodafone.aspx
>

--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: [phone] ext 7749
Fax: [phone]
Email: salustri@...
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/

[David Durling]

I'm very much with Fil and Klaus on this one. If we flip the statement  
to read that designers should not involve themselves in any aspects of  
engineering, architecture etc., or indeed any aspects of another [art/
design] designer's role, then a good deal of valuably creative input  
would be lost - I imagine there would be howls of protest from the art/
design community as well. In these days of team working, the notion of  
a strict interpretation of a professional role seems rather outdated.  
Multiple views of difficult problems are to be valued.

David
.........................................................................

David Durling FDRS PhD   http://durling.tel
.........................................................................



On 13 Sep 2009, at 5:27 pm, Filippo A. Salustri wrote:

> Jose,
>
> You made the same mistake Klaus did.  You wrote "Design engineers  
> can also
> do this job, although this is not their main role, and therefore,  
> usually
> should not be carried out by them."  I agree with the 1st & 2nd  
> clauses, but
> the conclusion (after the 'therefore') doesn't follow at all.  It  
> may be
> academically convenient to partition the typical responsibilities of  
> one
> kind or another of designer, but in practise, I will not accept that a
> designer's disciplinary affiliation "should" (your word) prevent him/
> her
> from contributing substantively to design activities occurring in  
> some other
> discipline.  I have seen this happen in real life often enough; the
> interloper's input has been valuable often enough to convince me  
> there is
> not necessary reason to exclude them just because their background is
> inappropriate by anyone's measure.
>
> I'm okay with saying something like "Design engineers can also do  
> this job,
> although this is not their main role, and this may explain why they  
> usually
> do not carry them out in practise."  This is a statement of how  
> things are.
> Using "should" makes me think you're saying this is how it's  
> supposed to
> be.  And that's where I disagree.
>
> I'm fine with differentiating between design activities.  But saying  
> that
> one or another of us "should not" do one thing or another is a value
> judgement I will resist absolutely, unless properly supported by an
> undeniable argument.  Which is also lacking in this case.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil

[Jose Luis Casamayor]

Hi Fil and David,

 
I apologise if the word ‘should’ might sound a bit like a personal judgement (which was not), but the point I tried to make was that design engineers (practitioners/researchers) have a range of knowledge and skills inherent of their disciplines (training, research training and experience) that differ from the knowledge and skills of, say, graphic designers. Therefore it is only too natural that they respectively will be more prepared (and feel more comfortable) to do their respective work than people who did not receive that specific training/experience. Of course, there might be design engineers with exceptional natural skills as a graphic designer but that is not the general rule. All This by no means imply that design engineers cannot collaborate with other type of designers, all the opposite, design is multidisciplinary by nature, so they usually have (should) to collaborate with design engineers, and this is usually the case in product development.
 
But their respective disciplines have specific training, etc. that makes them different among them, although they can also have similarities. To make clear these differences not only have benefits for academic purposes but also for the professional world. i.e.: design engineers designing the casing of a product which might well be designed mainly by industrial designers; and the opposite, industrial designers having to design the functional part of the product which might well be designed mainly by design engineers (although this not so usual due to the type of skills required). Again, these ‘reference boundaries’ do not mean that there should not be open collaboration and discussion among all members of a team/academy involved in product development/research, but that each one should know which part of the design outcome they should be experts in for the benefit of the other members and the final outcome.
 
I hope this helps,
 
Jose        

 

_________________________________________________________________
Con Vodafone disfruta de Hotmail gratis en tu móvil. ¡Pruébalo!
http://serviciosmoviles.es.msn.com/hotmail/vodafone.aspx

[Filippo A. Salustri]

Yes, it helps.  I expected that that was what you meant.  Dunno if Klaus
meant this.

The one thing you're missing, IMHO, is that just because engineering
designers have a different background from any other kind of designer does
NOT mean they (could) share a substantive methodological background.  I'm
one of those apparently odd birds who thinks that designing is an activity
the body of knowledge of which is NOT entirely dependent on the artifact
being designed.  That is to say, there is such a thing called design that is
not associated with any particular discipline, and that it is rather like a
methodological template.  It gets instanced into a discipline and modified
by/with the domain specific knowledge of that discipline, to yield
engineering design, or graphic design, or [whatever] design.

I have come to this view after years of listening to non-engineering
designers and noticing startling methodological similarities between them
all.

And I think the biggest mistake we make, as design researchers, is in
thinking that design is only what it is in the sundry disciplines.  This is
the undercurrent I perceive when reading posts like yours and Klaus's.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that, based on my own
experiences and studies, I disagree.

Cheers.
Fil

2009/9/13 jose luis casamayor <casamayorjose_luis@...>

> Hi Fil and David,
>
>
> I apologise if the word ‘should’ might sound a bit like a personal
> judgement (which was not), but the point I tried to make was that design
> engineers (practitioners/researchers) have a range of knowledge and skills
> inherent of their disciplines (training, research training and experience)
> that differ from the knowledge and skills of, say, graphic designers.
> Therefore it is only too natural that they respectively will be more
> prepared (and feel more comfortable) to do their respective work than people
> who did not receive that specific training/experience. Of course, there
> might be design engineers with exceptional natural skills as a graphic
> designer but that is not the general rule. All This by no means imply that
> design engineers cannot collaborate with other type of designers, all the
> opposite, design is multidisciplinary by nature, so they usually have
> (should) to collaborate with design engineers, and this is usually the case
> in product development.
>
> But their respective disciplines have specific training, etc. that makes
> them different among them, although they can also have similarities. To make
> clear these differences not only have benefits for academic purposes but
> also for the professional world. i.e.: design engineers designing the casing
> of a product which might well be designed mainly by industrial designers;
> and the opposite, industrial designers having to design the functional part
> of the product which might well be designed mainly by design engineers
> (although this not so usual due to the type of skills required). Again,
> these ‘reference boundaries’ do not mean that there should not be open
> collaboration and discussion among all members of a team/academy involved in
> product development/research, but that each one should know which part of
> the design outcome they should be experts in for the benefit of the other
> members and the final outcome.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Jose
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Con Vodafone disfruta de Hotmail gratis en tu móvil. ¡Pruébalo!
> http://serviciosmoviles.es.msn.com/hotmail/vodafone.aspx
>

--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: [phone] ext 7749
Fax: [phone]
Email: salustri@...
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/

[Klaus Krippendorff]

fil,
i do agree with jose and david, in case you have doubts.

however, i want to be a bit more clear about the difference between
human-centered design and technology-centered design.

you say that engineers also are concerned with the usefulness of the
artifacts they design.  sure in an abstract sense you are right.  why would
a chip designer work on trying to increase the speed of computation were it
not for the knowledge that it would be appreciated by someone, or why would
an architectural engineer be concerned with dimensioning a wall so that it
doesn't collapse if it were not for the knowledge that a collapse is costly
to someone.  but this is not the only point.

part of knowledge of value to human-centered designers is how the
stakeholders and users of their design see, conceptualize, and use their
artifacts. human-centered designers are primarily interested in making sure
that artifacts work psychologically, sociologically, and culturally.
technology centered designers (engineers) are more interested how an
artifact works mechanically.  human-centered designers cannot ignore that
mechanical functioning but are fundamentally concerned with the conceptions
and meanings people bring to it.  

for example, one concept of central importance for human-centered designers
is the concept of affordance, the extent to which the conceptions of a user
are supported by what the perceived artifact does.  an affordance, gibson
reminds us, is a relational concept, fundamentally routed in the
relationship between human conceptions and what of it is supported by our
environment.  ask some engineers whether their design process is driven by
the conceptions that potential users may bring to their design or from the
conceptions of the logic of the mechanism they envision.  i think engineers
would prefer the latter.  

let me also say that i have and engineering design degree, so i know what i
am talking about.

personally, i think human-centered designers need to be able to do research,
design, and argue from the unique strength of their knowledge of how humans
interface with artifacts. they need to be able to offer engineers something
engineers are not trained to conceptualize.  designers who know a little bit
of everything, none too deeply, are universal charlatans.  as such, they are
not likely to be consulted or respected by people who are very competent for
what they do and superficially competent in what designers do.

in my "semantic turn, a new foundation for design," i have made the case for
the distinction between human-centered and technology-centered design,
outlined some of the methods that are unique to human-centered design, all
of which in order to strengthen professional design in its ability to earn
its respect from other disciplines it needs to work with.

klaus    

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of Filippo
A. Salustri
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:07 PM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?

Yes, it helps.  I expected that that was what you meant.  Dunno if Klaus
meant this.

The one thing you're missing, IMHO, is that just because engineering
designers have a different background from any other kind of designer does
NOT mean they (could) share a substantive methodological background.  I'm
one of those apparently odd birds who thinks that designing is an activity
the body of knowledge of which is NOT entirely dependent on the artifact
being designed.  That is to say, there is such a thing called design that is
not associated with any particular discipline, and that it is rather like a
methodological template.  It gets instanced into a discipline and modified
by/with the domain specific knowledge of that discipline, to yield
engineering design, or graphic design, or [whatever] design.

I have come to this view after years of listening to non-engineering
designers and noticing startling methodological similarities between them
all.

And I think the biggest mistake we make, as design researchers, is in
thinking that design is only what it is in the sundry disciplines.  This is
the undercurrent I perceive when reading posts like yours and Klaus's.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that, based on my own
experiences and studies, I disagree.

Cheers.
Fil

2009/9/13 jose luis casamayor <casamayorjose_luis@...>

> Hi Fil and David,
>
>
> I apologise if the word ‘should’ might sound a bit like a personal
> judgement (which was not), but the point I tried to make was that
> design engineers (practitioners/researchers) have a range of knowledge
> and skills inherent of their disciplines (training, research training
> and experience) that differ from the knowledge and skills of, say, graphic
designers.

> Therefore it is only too natural that they respectively will be more
> prepared (and feel more comfortable) to do their respective work than
> people who did not receive that specific training/experience. Of
> course, there might be design engineers with exceptional natural
> skills as a graphic designer but that is not the general rule. All
> This by no means imply that design engineers cannot collaborate with
> other type of designers, all the opposite, design is multidisciplinary
> by nature, so they usually have
> (should) to collaborate with design engineers, and this is usually the
> case in product development.
>
> But their respective disciplines have specific training, etc. that
> makes them different among them, although they can also have
> similarities. To make clear these differences not only have benefits
> for academic purposes but also for the professional world. i.e.:
> design engineers designing the casing of a product which might well be
> designed mainly by industrial designers; and the opposite, industrial
> designers having to design the functional part of the product which
> might well be designed mainly by design engineers (although this not
> so usual due to the type of skills required). Again, these ‘reference
> boundaries’ do not mean that there should not be open collaboration
> and discussion among all members of a team/academy involved in product
> development/research, but that each one should know which part of the
> design outcome they should be experts in for the benefit of the other

members and the final outcome.

>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Jose
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Con Vodafone disfruta de Hotmail gratis en tu móvil. ¡Pruébalo!
> http://serviciosmoviles.es.msn.com/hotmail/vodafone.aspx
>

--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: [phone] ext 7749
Fax: [phone]
Email: salustri@...
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/

[Jason Foster]

Jumping in a little late in order to avoid working on my syllabus for  
tomorrow morning...

<snip/>

> why would a chip designer work on trying to increase the speed of  
> computation were it
> not for the knowledge that it would be appreciated by someone,

<snip/>

> part of knowledge of value to human-centered designers is how the
> stakeholders and users of their design see, conceptualize, and use  
> their
> artifacts. human-centered designers are primarily interested in  
> making sure
> that artifacts work psychologically, sociologically, and culturally.

<snip/>

> for example, one concept of central importance for human-centered  
> designers
> is the concept of affordance, the extent to which the conceptions of  
> a user
> are supported by what the perceived artifact does.

<snip/>

Allow me to step in and channel an Intel chip designer (I'm not one,  
but I read Jon Stokes' work on Ars Technica a lot) for a moment.

The people I have to consider as I'm developing the next iteration of  
the CPU include:

- the compiler developers, who need to understand it's workings to  
complete their work and for who it has to make sense (e.g. if it's an  
X86 then it will act in a certain way under certain conditions) and  
who will expect it to embody certain assumptions and characteristics
- the process engineers, who need to implement it physically
- the marketing people, who need to explain to the public why it's  
desirable
- my direct colleagues, who need to work with my proposed ideas
- my future self, who will be limited by the design decisions I've  
made and will have to debug my work
- myself, who has to be able to understand the nature of the design  
sufficient to carry it to completion
- past chip designers, who have made decisions that have locked me  
into a path _unless_ I break compatibility
- the graphics chip designers, who I'm competing against now that  
rendering is moving back onto the CPU
- the technical sales people who will try and convince Nintendo to use  
the chip in their next console
- researchers, who will try to improve on my design and from whom I am  
borrowing ideas

I'm certain that there are more, but this is what jumps to mind.  In  
every case the chip designer has to consider the impact of their  
technical decisions on the ability of others to comprehend, utilize,  
explain, and otherwise interact with their design.  By virtue of being  
from Intel, this individual would have to make decisions that are  
recognizably "Intel" and not solve things as an engineer from Motorola  
or IBM would.

I would draw particular attention to the compiler writers who in  
particular would have "conceptions that potential users may bring to  
their design".

> ask some engineers whether their design process is driven by
> the conceptions that potential users may bring to their design or  
> from the
> conceptions of the logic of the mechanism they envision.  i think  
> engineers
> would prefer the latter.

That may be their preference, just as some industrial designs might  
really prefer to tell users what they'll like (as caricatured by  
representations of Steve Jobs) as opposed to asking them or even  
considering them.  Individual preferences are not a disciplinary  
belief system.

Jason

[Klaus Krippendorff]

sure,
jason,
hardly anyone works by him or herself, nowadays.  this is what stakeholder
theory articulates and clarifies.  you give a good list of the stakeholders
of chip designers.  

however, there is a difference between a consensus in the use of a
rational-technical language within which engineering problems are stated and
considered solved, and more or less public and ordinary discourse in which
people talk, see, and interact with each other and their artifacts. for
human-centered designers the latter is the prime decider on how a design is
to proceed.

in other words, technology-centered engineers can demonstrate to each other
and to their stakeholders how something physically functions and satisfied
given, often measurable specifications.  human-centered designers, by
contrast, do not have quite these luxuries as they have to listen to how
others see what they are proposing and speculate where these considerations
might be going..

there is a difference between first-order understanding -- the understanding
of how something works -- and second-order understanding -- the
understanding of others understanding of what something means to them, how
one interacted with it accordingly, and how third-person others
conceptualize, judge, and interact one's own use.

i doubt that second-order understanding is evident in the discourse of
engineering.  it even escaped herbert simon's "sciences of the artificial,"
although he once did write a paper on the self-verifying process of public
opinion predictions, which touched on the understanding of understanding.
yet second-order understanding or knowing is foundational to human-centered
design.

so, don't just stay on the surface of this distinction

klaus.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Foster [mailto:retsofaj@...]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:26 PM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Cc: Klaus Krippendorff
Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?

Jumping in a little late in order to avoid working on my syllabus for
tomorrow morning...

<snip/>

> why would a chip designer work on trying to increase the speed of
> computation were it not for the knowledge that it would be appreciated
> by someone,

<snip/>

> part of knowledge of value to human-centered designers is how the
> stakeholders and users of their design see, conceptualize, and use
> their artifacts. human-centered designers are primarily interested in
> making sure that artifacts work psychologically, sociologically, and
> culturally.

<snip/>

> for example, one concept of central importance for human-centered
> designers is the concept of affordance, the extent to which the
> conceptions of a user are supported by what the perceived artifact
> does.

<snip/>

Allow me to step in and channel an Intel chip designer (I'm not one, but I
read Jon Stokes' work on Ars Technica a lot) for a moment.

The people I have to consider as I'm developing the next iteration of the
CPU include:

- the compiler developers, who need to understand it's workings to complete
their work and for who it has to make sense (e.g. if it's an
X86 then it will act in a certain way under certain conditions) and who will
expect it to embody certain assumptions and characteristics
- the process engineers, who need to implement it physically
- the marketing people, who need to explain to the public why it's desirable
- my direct colleagues, who need to work with my proposed ideas
- my future self, who will be limited by the design decisions I've made and
will have to debug my work
- myself, who has to be able to understand the nature of the design
sufficient to carry it to completion
- past chip designers, who have made decisions that have locked me into a
path _unless_ I break compatibility
- the graphics chip designers, who I'm competing against now that rendering
is moving back onto the CPU
- the technical sales people who will try and convince Nintendo to use the
chip in their next console
- researchers, who will try to improve on my design and from whom I am
borrowing ideas

I'm certain that there are more, but this is what jumps to mind.  In every
case the chip designer has to consider the impact of their technical
decisions on the ability of others to comprehend, utilize, explain, and
otherwise interact with their design.  By virtue of being from Intel, this
individual would have to make decisions that are recognizably "Intel" and
not solve things as an engineer from Motorola or IBM would.

I would draw particular attention to the compiler writers who in particular
would have "conceptions that potential users may bring to their design".

> ask some engineers whether their design process is driven by the
> conceptions that potential users may bring to their design or from the
> conceptions of the logic of the mechanism they envision.  i think
> engineers would prefer the latter.

That may be their preference, just as some industrial designs might really
prefer to tell users what they'll like (as caricatured by representations of
Steve Jobs) as opposed to asking them or even considering them.  Individual
preferences are not a disciplinary belief system.

Jason