Kelsey brought up in class today a great question on the topic of the design process.
It's hard enough to understand our "design process." But how do we portray it? In a discipline that prides itself on the process as much as, if not more, than our product, what would our "process book" look like? In VCD and ID, you'd see ideation from rough sketches to computer generated mock ups or prototypes, to the finalized product. In design studies...?
Perhaps that is what makes us unique. Our varied background and the different contexts in which we do our work, informs different processes for each of us, in a way that does not lend itself to an idealized, standard DS "processbook."
Showing posts with label DS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DS. Show all posts
Monday, April 26, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
What is DS?
Back to the ultimate question.
DS IS ABLE TO
be an adaptable process
communicate with diverse audiences
gather and synthesize disparate information
TO
find new relevant problems
connect design to outside fields
change/influence behavior, ways of thinking, society, and context
SO THAT WE CAN
understand how designs fit into larger systems
produce novel frameworks for understanding information
produce products that may be more traditional graphic or physical design, or a design for a system
DS IS ABLE TO
be an adaptable process
communicate with diverse audiences
gather and synthesize disparate information
TO
find new relevant problems
connect design to outside fields
change/influence behavior, ways of thinking, society, and context
SO THAT WE CAN
understand how designs fit into larger systems
produce novel frameworks for understanding information
produce products that may be more traditional graphic or physical design, or a design for a system
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Articulation
This afternoon, I met with my new mentor, Joseph, who is working on business development at TeachStreet. He talked about what he does, I talked about what I'm studying.
"Business and design," I say.
"Oh what concentration?" he asked.
"Marketing," I reply.
He nods.
"What do you study in design?" he asks.
I always dread this question. Most people assume I'm studying fashion, for some reason. Interior design is a close second. Graphics, a third.
Each time I attempt to explain what "design studies" is, I come up with something different. So I plunge into another explanation, throwing around words like "interdisciplinary" and "process." He pokes and prods at my explanation, determined to understand what I was trying to explain.
I pull up thoughts from August's class last quarter: The simple questions, have the most complex answers. The complex questions, have simple answers.
He wonders about it in relation to the UX design, which is what he's encountered at his startup. I struggle to explain how all design should be addressing a problem, in some form or another.
"It's about problem-finding," I explain.
And he gets it. "Never thought about design that way before," he tells me, "but it makes sense."
Finally. It makes sense to me too. Sort of.
This role of manager as designer is hardly mentioned in the literature, and barely acknowledged in business practice. ...Managers practice "silent design"...the many decisions taken by non-designers who enter directly into the design process, no matter how unaware they or others may be of their impact.
— Angela Dumas and Henry Mintzberg, Managing the Form, Function, and Fit of Design, 1991
"Business and design," I say.
"Oh what concentration?" he asked.
"Marketing," I reply.
He nods.
"What do you study in design?" he asks.
I always dread this question. Most people assume I'm studying fashion, for some reason. Interior design is a close second. Graphics, a third.
Each time I attempt to explain what "design studies" is, I come up with something different. So I plunge into another explanation, throwing around words like "interdisciplinary" and "process." He pokes and prods at my explanation, determined to understand what I was trying to explain.
I pull up thoughts from August's class last quarter: The simple questions, have the most complex answers. The complex questions, have simple answers.
He wonders about it in relation to the UX design, which is what he's encountered at his startup. I struggle to explain how all design should be addressing a problem, in some form or another.
"It's about problem-finding," I explain.
And he gets it. "Never thought about design that way before," he tells me, "but it makes sense."
Finally. It makes sense to me too. Sort of.
This role of manager as designer is hardly mentioned in the literature, and barely acknowledged in business practice. ...Managers practice "silent design"...the many decisions taken by non-designers who enter directly into the design process, no matter how unaware they or others may be of their impact.
— Angela Dumas and Henry Mintzberg, Managing the Form, Function, and Fit of Design, 1991
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Thoughts on DS -> IxD
I wasn't able to make the meeting discussing this but I just read Dominic's email, and despite the seemingly endless frustrations with the DS program, I'm sad to see it go.
Yes, combining all the courses into the IxD track will be great for the design program as a whole, will make life easier for everybody, etc.
But considering it from a personal point of view, I don't think I would be in design if I were entering this program a few years down the road. What drew me to DS was the explicit interdiscilpinary nature of it, because the slightly fewer credits allowed for taking on a second major feasible. Not to say that doing a 188 credit design track plus another major is not possible, but I expect it would make it significantly more difficult.
Yes, I understand IxD will be a major in itself and not a "half major" like some people percieve the current DS program to be. Yes, there will be course cirriculum overlaps. But I'm not seeing these changes so much as combining the DS track, as it is getting rid of the DS track. I expect that this IxD track will focus more on IxD topics/issues and I have nothing against IxD. However, my favorite part of the DS track is seeing the interests of my fellow classmates, whether accounting, crafting, guitars, or sustainability. Not to say that IxD can't address these topics, but I suspect that the approaches and the frame of mind that will be indoctrinated will differ than the more free-style whatever-goes of DS.
Although it is frustrating articulating what DS is, that is what makes it so great. It forces each of us to make our own connections from design to the world at large.
Yes, combining all the courses into the IxD track will be great for the design program as a whole, will make life easier for everybody, etc.
But considering it from a personal point of view, I don't think I would be in design if I were entering this program a few years down the road. What drew me to DS was the explicit interdiscilpinary nature of it, because the slightly fewer credits allowed for taking on a second major feasible. Not to say that doing a 188 credit design track plus another major is not possible, but I expect it would make it significantly more difficult.
Yes, I understand IxD will be a major in itself and not a "half major" like some people percieve the current DS program to be. Yes, there will be course cirriculum overlaps. But I'm not seeing these changes so much as combining the DS track, as it is getting rid of the DS track. I expect that this IxD track will focus more on IxD topics/issues and I have nothing against IxD. However, my favorite part of the DS track is seeing the interests of my fellow classmates, whether accounting, crafting, guitars, or sustainability. Not to say that IxD can't address these topics, but I suspect that the approaches and the frame of mind that will be indoctrinated will differ than the more free-style whatever-goes of DS.
Although it is frustrating articulating what DS is, that is what makes it so great. It forces each of us to make our own connections from design to the world at large.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)