All posts tagged design thinking

  • April 23, 2014

    Simon | The Science of the Artificial (Chpt 5)

    Literature Review // Simon, Herbert A. “The Science of Design: Creating the Artificial.” The Sciences of the Artificial. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1996. 111-36. Print.

    What was the author arguing?

    Simon is talking about the science of design and in that, what that motivations and outcomes of design are. Here he makes his famous quote: “Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.” He is very concerned about the lack of design education in schools because of this unique approach, they’re not thinking about problems like designers do. SImon believes that even if these scientists never become expert designers (and visa versa) at least they will be able to have mutually beneficial conversations that are creative exchanges.

    Part of the design process doesn’t always find the optimal solution but satisfactory ones because of constraints. We would have to find all the of the solutions in order to know whether one is the best or not and so its much more about the design process.

    Why is this relevant? 

    This was the other half of the Krippendorf article discussed before. Again, not that relevant I explicitly, but it’s important to see the common language that’s being using by design now.

    No Comments / Thesis /

  • April 23, 2014

    Krippendorf | Design Research, an oxymoron?

    Literature review// Krippendorf, Klaus (2007). “Design Research, an Oxymoron” from Design Research Now. 

     

    What was the author arguing? 

    Krippendorf was explaining how the design research (the design process) is fundamentally different from scientific research. It’s goals, process, and intention are different. One of his main points was that design is created for a desired future (as Herbert Simon states), where as scientific research looks to observe the present. This different goal has a waterfall affect on the design research process (some, not all of his points):

    • Design puts a user/stakeholder at the center of its mission since it’s creating a preferred future for individuals. Design is social.
    • Designers focus on what is variable and what can change, not what has been varied. Because of this, designers work on innovation and possibilities more than scientists might.

    Krippendorf also expands upon Herbert Simon’s famous statement that designers goal is “changing existing situations into preferred ones,” say that this goal is only won part of the three motivation categories of a designer: challenge, opportunities, and possibilities of introducing variation.

    challenges…troublesome conditions/problems that don’t have a solution (wicked problems). This supports Krippendorf’s argument that designers are more comfortable with unstructured problems. He claims that Simon’s problem solving would be here.

    opportunities…not seen by others to do something to improve others’ lives.

    possibilities of introducing variations...perhaps for the sake of doing something different. Generally open to exploring something that hasn’t been considered by others before.

    Why is this relevant? 

    Perhaps less relevant to my actual thesis topic, but I thought it was a really interesting article in that, while making comparisons to both scientists and Herbert Simon, I got to read about how the motivations and philosophies behind design. It’s important to consider the motivations behind a design author’s actions to their user/reader since micro interactions is uniquely constantly interacting with a participant. Suguru mentioned that I would have to decide who I’m focusing on (designer, user, or both) and Krippendorf makes a strong and repetitive case for remembering stakeholders.

    No Comments / Thesis /