many designers can happily work with engineers, but those who don't and then make it well known what they think of this scientific world create a situation where conflict is more likely in the future.
Before considering the conflict, it is important to have a clear understanding of the terms used. These definitions may also clear up some of the more basic misunderstandings in reference to the field of science. A scientist is someone trying to understand how some aspect of the world works and come up with precise and rigorous descriptions of its properties and behaviors. Designers will very seldom come in contact with a scientist; rather, they come in contact with people who could be called technologists. These are people who have a science background and are in jobs where they apply the principles of science to solve problems. A scientist knows why and how something works; a technologist takes what the scientist discovers and applies it in useful ways. For example a physicist (scientist) studies how the world works and creates definitions which describe it (the laws of physics). A civil engineer (technologist) will then apply these description/laws to design and test a structure which will stand up.
Conflict is caused by a number of factors on both sides. Designers have difficulty working with technologists because technologists either ignore or do not value the goals and methods of the designer such as aesthetics or intuitive reasoning. Technologists stereotype designers as people who “just make stuff pretty” and ignore function and how the world works. They may have a very negative stereotype of designers as being fussy, stubborn and impossible to work with. Technologist also become frustrated with “fuzzy designers”— designers who do not seriously consider the feasibility of their design in the real world, giving the impression that it doesn’t really matter. These preconceived ideas create a rift.
Technologists have difficulty working with designers because designers do the same thing to them. Designers either ignore or do not value goals and methods of the technologists, such as function, reliability, and analysis by scientific methods. Designers have the stereotype that technologists just make big, ugly, functional things. Designers are frustrated that in a response to a design, technologists will say “it can’t be done”, or ask “why would you want to do that, it’s stupid”. Because of this, designers don't share their ideas and the problems become much larger later down the track.
These stereotypes and prejudices are not the only things that hinder the relationship. Some designers appear to fear that if they if they accept and use science in the design process that the discipline of design will become formulaic or a science and that the beauty of variety and acceptance of diversity will be lost. It is possible that this fear arises from a misunderstanding of science as being purely an application of formulas void of human influence, combined with ????a rejection of design movements where the design become to wildly accepted and lesser designers start applying the basic ideas of the design in unthought-out ‘formulaic’ ways…..????
Another cause of conflict is that some designers judge the value of science through the designs that the technologists produce. For example a civil engineer may produce a very ugly bridge. A designer then sees it and comes to the conclusion that if that is what science produces then it must be of no use to design. However, it is not the science that generates the ugly bridge, rather it is the lack of aesthetic skills of the technologist.
There is also often a misunderstanding on the technologist’s part as to what a designer does. Technologists often consider designers to be just stylists. This results in the designer’s potential not being used or appreciated. More importantly it results in the designer being unwilling to work with technologists because they are prevented from designing the product itself and limited to trying to cover it up afterwards. “Designers have always been engaged to add a bit of style to an otherwise undistinguished product, and will continue to be so. But the best designers have always insisted on being in at the birth of a product concept and working closely with both the engineers and the many other specialists involved in its development.” […] (John Hendry and Angela Dumas 3)
This problem is not just the fault of the technologist: designers frequently do not communicate what they do in a way in which the technologist can understand “...designers in general, tend to eschew words and to communicate to the outside world only in visual images, which themselves reflect the completed design rather than the design as process. This is indeed one major reason why outsiders see their work in terms of “simple creativity”: by keeping the process hidden in a shroud of mystique, they positively encourage such a view.” […]
paragraph on problems caused by not recognizing constraints and requirements from the other side and designing separately, instead of early consultation and cooperative design.
There are two major factors underlying all these problems. The first is the realization that each group is trying to create something, but with different sets of values and goals. The solution of the technologist may not meet the values and goals of the designer, just as the solution of the designer may not meet the values and goals of the technologist. [ find an example] judged according to a design scale it would fail in the same way If Philippe Stark’ ‘JUICY SALIF’ citrus-fruit squeezer is likely to fail when judged by engineering standards because perform its doesn’t for its function smoothly.” is said to spill lemon juice all over the fingers” (1)
Secondly they are both creating things within their sets of values and more importantly out of their knowledge and view point. Both technologists and designers have ‘know how’ knowledge. A technologist know how something will react according to the scientific principles they have learned. A designer know how something will react from design principles they have learned. For example a mechanical engineer (technologist) will know how to work out the effect of a ball when it is dropped in terms of the path it will take, the velocity it will be traveling, the energy released on impact etc.; a designer will know how to work out the effect of the ball in terms of its proportion, balance, placement, function within the design, etc. This means that when the two groups interact, they will be talking in different terms. However, some of the know how is shared (though expressed differently and appearing contradictory) and some will be complementary, …… explain complementary, diagram .
[ when an engineer says “no, it can’t be done”….maybe not trying, or …[separate paragraph on hard problems where outside routine knowhow of both sides – needs insights from both to solve] There will also be there will be gaps in the know how knowledge where neither know how to do it but a solution is needed and there will be places where the knowledge overlaps and can appear to contradict.
These two factors become a problem when people on either side refuse to accept or try to understand the other side. Both designers and technologists become frustrated with the narrow-mindedness of the other party who will only accept what they know.
This distrust has the effect of not only making communication hard for designers but also making them seemingly distrust the entire science field. This cuts off all the possible benefits science has to offer. If the distrust is overcome, and the communication mended, then the door would be opened to better collaboration with technologists, new sources of inspiration, new methods of approaching design, new ways to measure or test designs, and new resources of knowledge. It would enable designers to push designs to new levels and mature the field of design.
Opportunities for inspiration can come from many different places in science. It can come through a new discovery, for example a materials scientist could create or discover a new type of material that has interesting properties that could be used in design. It could be through talking and interacting with technologists or scientists who could illuminate a different view point which sparks and idea or an idea could be developed together through the interaction. It could also come through borrowing an idea or method and applying them in a design situation. [For example, a project called grow by Samuel Cabot Cochran Samuel Cabot Cochran a solar and wind power generator “take its cues from how trees work in nature. After all, thousands of years of evolution can’t be wrong: if a more efficient design for gathering solar energy lay in developing huge slabs (see most existing solar panels installed on houses these days), trees ought to produce a single huge leaf! “
Science offers ways of testing or measuring the effectiveness a design. For example [cognitive science reference]
The field of science is also a huge resource for designers that can be accessed in many ways. When designers are faced with a difficulty in finding a solution to a design problem often research in to the area is necessary. This could require extensive experimentation on the designer’s part taking large amounts of time. Depending on the problem it is likely that this experimentation could be lessened or even eliminated by looking at research that has already been done. The science field is all about research so it offers a huge amount of information that can help solve the problems. For example [example of design issue being solved by science principle.]
Science can enable designers to go further with designs. [Examples metal tubing modernist design, metal- tool design, plastic - fluid forms, injection molding and industrial revolution - mass production, cad programs faster visualizations of designs. Physics tall buildings, smart materials- milk bottle packages.]
It helps to [ futher mature the field of design] likely to be cut
It is inevitable that designers will have to work with technologist in their career in most likely engineers. If the boundaries between the two field are broken down it will make the process very much easier.
time paragraph – it’s more efficient to solve problems early instead of late. and redoing.
A way to inform, justify, or correct intuition ( particularly in terms of psychology of perception) (intuition comes as a package, “this is what I think”, by analyzing, may get rid of invalid elements.)
How to reach a place of understanding and cooperation: last section of essay
Respect !!!
Understanding
Explanations of the others goals, values and approaches of each discipline and a realization that they are both good
Carnegie Mellon course teaching cooperation
Understanding of what the other party brings and their limits
recognizing and understanding the requirements and constraints from the other side.
A knowledge of each other’s concepts and terms
Communication
Quotes from the principles of design example of collaboration in PDA design
Conclusion
No comments:
Post a Comment