Visualizing the design process

Design process by David Armano

Visualization of the design process from David Armano. Similar to most diagrams on the design process but perhaps more detail and unique terminology. While the visualization of the design process is not equivalent to visualizing the concept of design, one can still still learn a great deal about the nature of design by looking it the process.

Comparing definitions of design: Pecha Kucha presentation on Youtube

For a quick 6 minute summary of my comparison between two definitions of design, below is my Pecha Kucha presentation on Youtube.

The quality of this video is low, which makes it near impossible to read the slides that I’m referring to. I suggest you view the presentation in “High Quality” by viewing the video on YouTube’s site and clicking on the Watch High Quality button just below the video.

Comments are more than welcome.

Pecha Kucha: Comparing two visions of design

Welcome to my foray into the blogosphere.

I timed the launch of this blog with the Pecha Kucha presentation to give you an opportunity to discuss the two visions of design that I presented. I would love to hear your thoughts on my presentation, especially from such a diverse crowd.

Do you agree? Do you disagree? Is my interpretation of Buchanan and Mau wrong? What’s your vision?

As I finish my thesis studies, I will be posting my ideas on this blog. Sign up for my RSS feed to be kept informed of when and what I post.

Background info

If you found my presentation too fast and you are confused; or, you just want some more information, take a look at the other posts on this blog, plus the following background info:

• Mapping design as a discipline, 5step process for defining design (PDF 162KB)
  View my diagram that tries to map the disciplines and then situate design among them. This diagram also includes a 5-step process for how to define design (or any word like design).
• Buchanan, Richard. “Design Research and the New Learning”, Design Issues, 2001. 17(4), 3-23.
  Richard Buchanan’s paper in which he gives an explicit definition of design (see page 9)
• Bruce Mau, Massive Change
  Bruce Mau’s Massive Change website, his definition is in paragraph six. The site was launched in conjunction with his Massive Change exhibition and book in 2004.
• Pecha Kucha presentation (PDF 1.8MB)

Summary of presentation’s main points

• Bruce Mau and Richard Buchanan are defining design (as a discipline) in too broad a manner
• Buchanan and Mau’s conception of design, places design as an umbrella discipline for all ‘applied’ disciplines, like engineering, genetics, politics and economics
• Defining design is less a philosophic problem than it is an issue of practicality. For example, what is the use of such a broad discipline as Buchanan and Mau are proposing

Global debate: Our discussion isn’t confined to this blog

Thanks to the beauty of web 2.0 your comments will form part of much wider dialogue about the foundations of design across the Internet. Here are some other bloggers and sites that are talking about the similar things:

• A collection of definitions of design
• What is graphic design?
• What is engineering design?
• What is conceptual design? Can a design be immaterial?
• Relationship between design and business
• Is rhetoric a foundational element of design?
• Jamin Hegeman (Carnegie Mellon) on why defining design is important
• Why define? Having clarity about the term ‘design’ will help designers promote the field to outsiders
• Massive Change

Design theory starts with asking: what is design?

For a blogging site with a topic as broad and far-reaching as ‘design theory’, what does one write in their first post? Coming from an analytic frame of mind, I naturally want to start at the foundation and then build a body of knowledge upon a set of key principles – that is, using deductive reasoning.

Taking this approach, what is the foundation for design theory? In my view, the foundation is determining the scope or domain of ‘design theory’ or, in other words, moving towards an answer to the question “what is design?”

Critics may argue that this is the one question that is best left unanswered for the topic of design theory, since stipulating a definition at the outset ends the discussion (thus rendering this blog moot).
I disagree. In fact, I think the opposite is true. Stipulating a definition doesn’t end the debate, it starts the debate. It gives you something to ponder, discuss, praise or criticize. It also provides this blog the beginning of some common language and domain of discussion. This domain may shift as discussion moves along, but at least we have something to start with.

So, “what is design?” This question is just as fraught with linguistic and theoretical difficulties as the age-old philosophical question “what is art?”, but for a myriad of reasons there is only a fraction of the literature. This is unfortunate because design practice and theory is far from a state of clarity. As with art, the word design has many uses and many definitions which range from the specific (‘to mark out’) to the abstract (‘to plan’). Also, as with art, there is little consensus about which definition is ‘best’ or ‘correct.’ This confusion poses problems for the teaching of design and for the sharing of knowledge about design. In fact, the ambiguity is so great, some argue that one cannot even call ‘design’ a discipline.

It is my hope, through this blog and my future research, we can generate a much needed debate about the foundations of design (as a discipline) and how this impacts the teaching and practice of design. In my opinion, as long as the design discipline remains as ambiguous as it is today, it will continue to be misunderstood in the academic and business world.

In posts to come I will explore various definitions of design.  Later, I will elaborate on how the ambiguity of the word ‘design’ plays out in the everyday life of a designer.