|
|
By Jessica Speigel, on February 28th, 2010 A couple weeks ago I talked about the difficulty of defining design as the design industry is busy (re)defining itself as globalization, strategy, and the delegation of work in a knowledge-based economy (thanks for that term Fiona!) become more important factors in how the design process works. I did finally come up with an ending to the baby definition I originally posted: “design is a systematic process of research, ideation, and iteration undertaken to solve a specific problem, the result of which may or may not be given form.” I didn’t like the words “specific problem” in there then, and I like them even less now. I have been reading Nigel Cross’ Designerly Ways of Knowing, which researches design as a form of intelligence and really goes deep into design cognition. Cross talks a lot in his research about ill-definedness as a main feature of design problems, which I guess I realized on an internal level, but hadn’t thought to articulate in my definition. It is an important feature of design problems as given, but I also want to include problem-finding in the definition, which I think is important too. Or maybe both ideas are actually one and the same? Designers are often asked to solve a specific problem, but usually end up finding the real problem that needs to be solved during the design process. I know that I generally don’t trust the briefs I am given as describing the problem completely or even partially. I think this problem-finding that designers do to solve the problem the client intended instead of described is actually one of the most valuable assets that designers have. I hadn’t really thought about it like that before now. On a totally different note… In one of the comments to the original post on this problem, Lauren came to the conclusion that design is a way to think, which is also true. And at the same time, design is an attitude. An attitude in approaching problems and in the process of solving them.
I don’t know if I’m any closer to a particularly satisfying definition by collecting these sub-definitions that also ring true. To be honest, the whole thing still feels like a pretty nebulous blob in my brain, but I do enjoy the process of sussing it out.
By Jessica Speigel, on February 27th, 2010 I had a long talk with my sister Liz today about which methods I should use to gather data for my capstone. She graduated the summer before last from Seattle University with a sociology major and women’s studies minor. One really cool opportunity she had through honors there was to conduct a yearlong research project, which she used to conduct a study of female sexuality. After filling her in on what I’m planning on doing, we talked a little about what the best way would be to design the survey, how and when to do the unstructured interviews, and the issue of IRB approval, which I hadn’t thought about before. She had a really good idea, which was to conduct some unstructured interviews before I design the survey, in order to get a better idea of what should be on the survey. I was planning on having my initial research inform the survey, but doing a few unstructured interviews first seems like a really good addition. Luckily, we agreed that 30 minutes is probably the absolute limit I can expect people to devote to my survey. I was thinking a goal of 25 minutes would be best, broken up into pages that can be saved and come back to if necessary. The last issue worries me because Liz had a really hard time getting IRB approval. In fact, as far as I remember, she was denied because the IRB didn’t think she had enough experience to respond correctly to participants who might become upset due to the sensitive nature of the subject. Her advisor helped her get around it somehow, but I believe the solution was something pretty terrible like not being able to publish the results outside of the class. I just have no idea how to go about getting IRB approval or if I even need it. Definitely a question to ask in class tomorrow.
By Jessica Speigel, on February 26th, 2010 I have a blog problem. I bookmark cool blogs that I find, but I tend to just stick to my one or two regulars and never go back to the new ones because it’s too much trouble for me to remember to check a bunch of different blogs each day. That, and I like to read from a bunch of different sources on one topic rather than everything coming from the same source. So I was excited the other day after class when we learned about the amazing tool otherwise known as Yahoo Pipes, I started futzing around with it to try and get all my favorite content in one place without having to visit a million blogs daily. The first one I made got corrupted somehow, but I was successful in creating a pipe of content from all the dopest typography blogs I’ve run across, all merged together so the newest posts from each site display first in the feed. I wanted to add a flickr stream of random images tagged with typography too, but flickr’s way of marking the post date was different than the way the blogs marked their post dates, and the two didn’t play nicely together. Some of the sites that are in there are Typographica, Ministry of Type, I Love Typography, Typophile, etc. There is a nice mix of text posts and images though, which I like. You can grab the RSS here to add to your favorite feed reader if you like it.
By Jessica Speigel, on February 22nd, 2010 I entered my capstone work—well, the work I have thus far—into the UW’s yearly undergraduate research symposium. I think it would be really fun to present the research. Luckily I’m one of those kooky people that enjoys public speaking. I wrote a couple different abstracts and settled on this one. I hope I get chosen!
Every designer has his or her own understanding of design, depending on several important factors: when and where they received their design education; their personal experiences; and the discipline in which they practice. Each designer also approaches the process of ideation differently based on these factors. Within these individual conceptions of what it means to design something and how one can create the optimum mental environment to generate creative ideas for addressing a problem is a wealth of knowledge that is invaluable to designers of all educational, personal, and professional backgrounds. This paper focuses on exposing techniques designers from a wide range of disciplines have developed to support successful ideation. In studying how different designers ideate and what tools lead to success or mediocrity, I hope to shed light on the ostensibly mystical concept of the creative process, with the goal of generating a landscape of ideation techniques that other designers, and especially design students, can draw from. In order to gather data from a diverse sample of practicing and student designers, I am designing a survey and conducting unstructured interviews. The resultant quantitative data will be graphically analyzed to uncover salient themes and patterns, while the qualitative data will be used to give context and insight into the human experience of the ideation process. The results of my analysis will culminate in an anthology of ideation techniques and case studies that designers can make use of and expand upon in their own work.
By Jessica Speigel, on February 19th, 2010 No, I’m not talking about the disagreement between the warm, sunny weather in Seattle and the current date. What I’m referring to is the disagreement between two equally interesting papers I came across in the Design Studies journal. Here are the two abstracts:
Design Ideation: The Conceptual Sketch in the Digital Age
Ben Jonson
University of London, Goldsmiths College, Department of Design, New Cross, London
Abstract: The freehand sketch has traditionally been seen as the primary conceptual tool in the early stages of the design process. But what is the impact of digital technology on conceptual tools and sketching in particular? A multiple case study compared how design students and design practitioners used conceptual tools in everyday design situations. The outcome showed that verbalisation, rather than freehand sketching was the major conceptual tool for getting started. Moreover, the computer emerged as an ideation tool across design domains.
Comparing Synthesis Strategies of Novice Graphic Designers Using Digital and Traditional Design Tools
Catherine Stonesa and Tom Cassidyb
aInstitute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds, Level 5, Roger Stevens Building, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
bSchool of Design, University of Leeds, UK
Abstract: This paper presents the results of an empirical experiment designed to compare synthesis strategies adopted by novice designers when using paper-based and computer-based tools. A taxonomy of six synthesis strategies was devised from the dataset. The results suggest that not only was paper-based sketching more effective in producing more solutions than digital working but was also more effective in supporting one particular synthesis strategy. A discussion follows regarding the type of graphical language chosen by novice designers, concluding that the use of symbolic systems such as fonts during synthesis tasks may restrict the scope of design ideas.
The first paper, Design Ideation, studies a group of professional and student designers across disciplines and asks them to report on what tools they used during ideation sessions; sketching, modeling (either in clay, fabric, etc), computer, or words. They found that most designers used words most often to ideate and using the computer came in a surprising second. Jonson argues that “the role of sketching may not have been sufficiently examined or challenged in the digital age, including the view that computer-aided design, CAD, is an inappropriate means for conceptualisation.” It is a traditional “rule” in design education that ideation is a time for sketching and going to the computer too quickly can limit a designer’s ideas. It’s important to note however, that in Jonson doesn’t take into account the quality of the ideas generated by the designers in the study, only what tools they used in their respective ideation processes.
The second paper was written two years later and Stones and Cassidy were aware of Jonson’s paper. Their study was different in the sense that it actually gave students a design problem (“elegantly combining a 6 and e so both could still be read”) and then giving them either pencil/paper or a computer to work on, then analyzing the results. They classified the solutions into six different groups based on the strategy taken the designer (for example, solutions where the forms were touching were labeled “touching”). Their findings were interesting in two ways. First, there were nearly twice as many solutions generated on paper than on the computer. They note that this could be because the designers could easily draw one solution after another, but on the computer, they actually had to choose which solutions to submit. In my opinion that doesn’t matter though, for the process of ideation. You could draw something that didn’t seem all that special one day, and come back to it the next morning and have it spark a completely new solution in your mind. If you were drawing on a computer, those marks that didn’t seem interesting would be gone. Stone and Cassidy’s second interesting finding was that one of the classifications—where one piece of one glyph made a piece of the other glyph—was found overwhelmingly on paper and not on the computer. Stone and Cassidy chose computer software that the students had been taught as part of their curriculum, so it is unlikely that it was an issue of technical competence. This seems to suggest that working on paper does allow access to a greater range of ideas, either because the solution is “hard” on the computer, and unconsciously avoided, or because it’s easier to draw. Who knows. Further study is obviously needed.
I’m having a really good time with this research, there is so much interesting stuff written—especially about how the tools interact with cognitive processes. I’m definitely hunting down the interesting citations in both these studies!
By Jessica Speigel, on February 19th, 2010 Today is my mom’s 63rd birthday. She is one of the most amazing women I have ever had the honor to know, let alone share genes with. Not only is she smart, gorgeous, genuine, and sweet, she’s incredibly gentle and caring while still being an incredibly strong woman. This post in dedicated to my mom, and the most important lessons she has taught me over the course of my life—and there have been many. Here are some of my favorites in no particular order.
- That a person who seems normal is someone you don’t know very well.
- That it’s important to trust people until they give you a reason not to.
- That you can’t ever take a day off from learning.
- That everybody has shit, and we all have a responsibility to work on it.
- That we could all stand to be more like ducks.
- That we can’t control what other people do, so it’s not worth worrying about.
- That meditation, massage, acupuncture, and pedicures are important steps in any worthwhile self-care regimen.
- That karma actually exists.
- That taking a different path is not only ok, but admirable.
- That underneath it all, all people are good.
Thanks mom! I owe everything that I am to you.
By Jessica Speigel, on February 15th, 2010 Wow. I was researching different diagramming and data visualization methods to figure out exactly how I can visualize the data that I’m going to gather for my capstone. I was thinking that it would be most useful to try and organize the dimensions of data into buckets of similar ideation techniques to see if any patterns emerged and I ended up going on a complete data visualization tangent. I’ve been super into data visualization since one of my old coworkers at Microsoft lent me Edward Tufte’s Envisioning Information. I love how a talented designer can coax the data to tell its own story. Anyway, since I just wasted a couple hours reading all these articles and following links, I figured I might as well share some of the more interesting links so everyone can benefit from my ADD.
- Visual Complexity—Great resource for anyone interested in different ways of visualizing complex data sets
- Information Aesthetics—Andrew Vande Moere’s blog. Really interesting guy, I hope I can interview him for my project.
- A Periodic Table of Visualization Methods—A cute AND useful interactive infographic showing a ton of ways to visualize data.
- Data Visualization: Modern Approaches—Article on Smashing Magazine linking to some of the raddest data visualizations I’ve ever seen. Some of them are older and all over the web, like the Flash-based visualization of Google news that creates hierarchy by making news stories bigger or smaller based on their popularity at the moment, but I hadn’t seen a lot of them and there were many paths to further explore. This was actually the article that got me started on this entire digression. And I mean that in the best way possible.
By Jessica Speigel, on February 13th, 2010 Design is a difficult term to define, especially today. Now, more than any point in design history, the boundaries between the various design disciplines are getting ever more fuzzy and artificial. With the advent of the personal computer and the widespread availability of tools like Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign, anyone with a little technical knowledge can set type and lay out a business card or brochure with relative ease. Even websites, which just ten years ago were relatively difficult to design without professional help are easy today to lay out with tools that come with most hosting packages. I learned from my friend Dana, a student in the industrial design program at UW, that since manufacturing is largely done overseas now, industrial designers are selling a story more than anything today. I’m not making a judgment on whether this turn of events is good or bad for design as an industry, I’m just saying that it changes how we are adding value. But that’s not really my point. My point is that because there is less barrier to entry than there used to be, we are selling our ideas and our thinking more than anything we create. This development affects the traditional design disciplines because to design a product, I don’t have to have the technical knowledge an industrial designer has. I just need to be able to communicate my idea to someone that can build it and likewise for interaction and visual communication design.
As the design field goes through these growing pains and finds it difficult to define itself, I have tasked myself with finding a suitable definition for design to use as I cast my net to trawl for designers whose ideation processes I want to study. What a pickle. Of course I looked at some dictionary definitions:
- plan: make or work out a plan for; devise; “They contrived to murder their boss”; “design a new sales strategy”; “plan an attack”
- the act of working out the form of something (as by making a sketch or outline or plan); “he contributed to the design of a new instrument”
- plan something for a specific role or purpose or effect; “This room is not designed for work”
- an arrangement scheme; “the awkward design of the keyboard made operation difficult”; “it was an excellent design for living”; “a plan for seating guests”
- create the design for; create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner; “Chanel designed the famous suit”
- blueprint: something intended as a guide for making something else; “a blueprint for a house”; “a pattern for a skirt”
- make a design of; plan out in systematic, often graphic form; “design a better mousetrap”; “plan the new wing of the museum”
- a decorative or artistic work; “the coach had a design on the doors”
- create designs; “Dupont designs for the house of Chanel”
- purpose: an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; “his intent was to provide a new translation”; “good intentions are not enough”; “it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs”; “he made no secret of his designs”
- conceive or fashion in the mind; invent; “She designed a good excuse for not attending classes that day”
- a preliminary sketch indicating the plan for something; “the design of a building”
- intend or have as a purpose; “She designed to go far in the world of business”
- invention: the creation of something in the mind
Somewhat surprisingly, many of them dealt with ideas. However, none of them get at the process behind the idea. And so I have at least one component of my own definition: Design is a process. I’m going to sleep on it and hope I wake up with the rest of the definition.
By Jessica Speigel, on February 12th, 2010 I had a great meeting with Dominic Muren, our untiring guide to all things Design Studies, to further refine the direction I’m taking with my capstone and constrain it in a way that it’s actually manageable. After looking at what I’ve done so far, and addressing the trepidation I’ve felt in actually nailing down a topic as important as this—after all, this is the project that my entire undergraduate experience is culminating in—we came up with what I think is a really interesting way to meld all the crazy ideas that have been floating around in my brain. Before I get into what the solution actually is, even though I know you’re dying to hear what it is, I feel obligated to give a bit of back story on my thinking over the past week to show how I got to where I am. My posts over the past week have dealt the role hand-work has in design, which brought my thoughts to role hand-work and craft have had in my own process. I have always been struck by the difference between the ideas that are generated by researching a topic through reading and verbal brainstorming versus sketching and experimenting with different materials. After thinking about this idea and brainstorming with Dominic, we identified this area as ripe for further research. Obviously I know the value hand-work has in my ideation process, but who knows what other designers do. The creative process has always been imbued with a sense of mystery and magic and I’m wondering if I can break it down a little bit so it’s more understandable. Taking a cue from the design industry itself and the degree of fuzziness that has developed between the various design disciplines—because really, who has ever met a practitioner who is solely an interaction designer, or graphic designer?—I’m going to cast a wide net and look at folks in all disciplines, between disciplines, and on the edge of the definition of design. Now I just have to define my terms…
By Jessica Speigel, on February 7th, 2010 Today I was googling for something relating to design—I don’t even remember what I was searching for now—and instead of getting what I thought I wanted, I ended up getting the only journal in existence completely focused on Design Studies. Take a moment to let that sink in. Perhaps the existence of this journal is woefully obvious to folks who have been in the DS game longer than I have, but finding this journal made my Superbowl Sunday. Here are its aims and scope:
Design Studies is the only journal to approach the understanding of design from comparisons across all domains of application, including engineering and product design, architectural design and planning, computer artefacts and systems design. It therefore provides a unique forum for the development and discussion of fundamental aspects of design activity and experience, from cognition and methodology to values and philosophy.The journal reports new research and scholarship in principles, procedures and techniques relevant to the practice, management and pedagogy of design..
As the concept of design becomes increasingly important, it is vital for researchers, educators and practising designers to stay abreast of the latest research and new ideas in this rapidly growing field; with its truly interdisciplinary coverage, Design Studies meets these needs with maximum effect.
The journal reports on new developments, techniques, knowledge and applications in the practice of design, as well as design education: how design techniques may be taught, the approach to ill-defined problems and the impact of new technologies. Coverage includes design management, design methods, participation in planning and design, design education, AI and computer aids in design, design in engineering, theoretical aspects of design, design in architecture, design and manufacturing, innovation in industry and design and society.”
I’m not going to try and contain my excitement. When I saw this, I literally ran around the house trying to figure out who to call to share my joy, but then I realized the energy would probably be better spent on a blog post.
Also, this journal isn’t just something that exists on paper. Every issue exists online through our University of Washington library system. Every issue, full text of every article, and none of this abstract-only-until-you-pay bullshit, is available in PDF format. Until we graduate of course. I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m going to be busy printing these babies out until spring. It was kind of difficult to get there through the library website, but if you’re logged into myUW, you should be able to get the full content in all its glory.
|
|
