HCI Theory Liveblog – 9/16/08

September 16th, 2008

What if we try to understand design as its own tradition?

Each of these traditions has its own measure of success, value system, beliefs, etc.
When someone wants to approach the world, they choose one of these traditions.
That means, that each of these approaches has some specific benefits, but also some really specific limitations.

Art doesn’t necessarily apply the right physics / science to the needed attributes for the bridge!

Instead of having a very traditional look at knowledge, being hands on / knowledgeable about material / etc., wanted to change to a research tradition.
“We need to make engineering more scientific”
First year math, then science, then engineering principles.
Maybe instead, have a class, like Marty’s, where you have to THINK like an engineer

How to interpret each of these traditions, and figure out the measure of success, is incredibly important.
All of this leads to the question, “Who is the designer, and what is the design tradition?

Is it art? Is it engineering?
If we really get down to it, we want someone who can create a good building. That is the important part.

This is why its so important to know what “stuff” each of these different disciplines brings to the table. To be able to use them in a clever way, you have to be able to understand them.
You have to also understand that none of the different disciplines is more valuable than any of the others.
Look at the world in front of you, look at the problem, and ask, “what is it you want to achieve, what is the outcome I need?” Then, think about which approach could allow for the outcome that you want.

This becomes a question of design:
How do you design your approach to include the various structures of thought that you need?
What is it that governs the design for your design?
Again, the question of intent for your final outcome is raised.

Think of an athlete – There are many different routines they can use to “better” themselves. Physical training, mental training, nutrition, etc.
The athlete that does the best job of combining a number of different aspects into his training will probably have the best outcome.

As a designer you constantly have to think about what you do, how do you do it, why do you do it, and the importance of all of it.

If you try to do everything, you will be good at nothing.
Some people also think that ever project is a combination of Science, Art, and Design.
Erik doesn’t agree… What is the ultimate measure of success here? Is it a scientific problem? An Artistic One? A designerly one?
How else might you look at this?
Scientists might take more of an artistic and designlerly approach to their problem. For a scientist though, its not how artistic they are, its not how well designed it is, its whether or not it can be measured as a scientific contribution.
From the same area of though, if you were taking a design approach there is an aspect of scientific research methods, and there are certainly artistic features as well. Its not measured as an artistic or scientific project, its a design project.

We create the world, we recreate the world, we design the world.
At this moment, we are in an environment that is 100% designed by humans. Nothing is natural in this location. Interesting topic arises here… designers want to get away from the natural and move towards the controlled. (e.g. The classroom is a controlled environment, its got an incredibly small chance that there will be wild animals.)
To design is to move from the natural state of things to the unnatural state of things.
What would happen if we designed in the natural, stayed in that natural, and only added safety and control?

In a natural light, there are certain changes that are “supposed” to happen. Evolution
As a designer, we look at changing the natural way of things. Which, raises the question, what right do we have as a designer to change the world (natural order of things?)
What is the responsibility then of the designer who creates a different kind of world?

The Real – Stuff that’s here (the “real” world) (Designers care more, generally, about the real world, about what’s there.) A pen, for example, is a real thing.
The True – Thing that we know (not necessarily the real world, but the way things are (What science aims for. Finding the Truth about the world.) Gravity, for example, is a true thing.
The Ideal – The way we want things to be. In “the perfect world.” (Art works a lot with the ideal.)

When you do design, you have to be in the real, the true, and the ideal, all at once.
This can help to understand why you do certain things as a designer.

In art / science you do things because you are self motivated.
If you hire an artist and ask them to do this, and this, and this, that person is often not really considered to be a “real” artist.
Artists are driven, they’re just burning to get whatever idea they have in them, out of them. If they are paid, they aren’t really coming up with the piece themselves in many cases.
Similarly, if you “hire” a scientist to do a study (like Exxon hiring a scientist to do a study about gas being good for the environment) you have to question the results. The real scientific results need to come about because the scientist wants to. They shouldn’t be a “service” or a means to an end.”
If you are designing, you always have a client, you always have a user. Even if you are designing for the common good, you still have an intended user. Still designing for “someone.”
What then, is the responsibility for Interaction Designers?

Of course we still have users / clients / etc. Of course, there is also the common good!

In every project there are different relationships between the designer and the client. In fact, the relationship should be “designed” to suit the purpose of that design project.

Blog Categories