Jump to content

Design: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
BotKung (talk | contribs)
Line 309: Line 309:
==Bibliography==
==Bibliography==


Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R.C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., and Thomas, D. "Manifesto for agile software development," 2001. Available: http://www.agilemanifesto.org/. Accessed: June 22, 2010
Ash, K,Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R.C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., and Thomas, D. "Manifesto for agile software development," 2001. Available: http://www.agilemanifesto.org/. Accessed: June 22, 2010


Bourque, P., and Dupuis, R. (eds.) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK). IEEE Computer Society Press, 2004.
Bourque, P., and Dupuis, R. (eds.) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK). IEEE Computer Society Press, 2004.

Revision as of 11:47, 10 November 2010

All Saints Chapel in the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis by Louis Comfort Tiffany. The building structure and decorations are both examples of design.
Poul Henningsen's PH5 lamp, designed in 1958.
Design, when applied to fashion, includes considering aesthetics as well as function in the final form.

Design as a noun informally refers to a plan for the construction of an object (as in architectural blueprints, circuit diagrams and sewing patterns) while “to design” (verb) refers to making this plan.[1] No generally-accepted definition of “design” exists,[2] and the term has different connotations in different fields (see design disciplines below). However, one can also design by directly constructing an object (as in pottery, cowboy coding and graphic design).

More formally, design has been defined as follows.

(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;
(verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)[3]

Here, a "specification" can be manifested as either a plan or a finished product and "primitives" are the elements from which the design object is composed.

With such a broad denotation, there is no universal language or unifying institution for designers of all disciplines. This allows for many differing philosophies and approaches toward the subject (see Philosophies and studies of design, below).

The person designing is called a designer, which is also a term used for people who work professionally in one of the various design areas, usually also specifying which area is being dealt with (such as a fashion designer, concept designer or web designer). A designer’s sequence of activities is called a design process.[4] The scientific study of design is called design science. [5]

Designing often necessitates considering the aesthetic, functional, economic and sociopolitical dimensions of both the design object and design process. It may involve considerable research, thought, modeling, interactive adjustment, and re-design. Meanwhile, diverse kinds of objects may be designed, including clothing, graphical user interfaces, skyscrapers, corporate identities, business processes and even methods of designing.[6]

Design as a process

Substantial disagreement exists concerning how designers in many fields, whether amateur or professional, alone or in teams, produce designs. Dorst and Dijkhuis argued that “there are many ways of describing design processes” and discussed “two basic and fundamentally different ways”,[7] both of which have several names. The prevailing view has been called “The Rational Model”,[8] “Technical Problem Solving”[9] and “The Reason-Centric Perspective”.[10] The alternative view has been called “Reflection-in-Action”,[9] “co-evolution” [11] and “The Action-Centric Perspective”.[10]

The Rational Model

The Rational Model was independently developed by Simon [12] and Pahl and Beitz.[13] It posits that:

  1. designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
  2. the design process is plan-driven,
  3. the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

The Rational Model is based on a rationalist philosophy [14] and underlies the Waterfall Model,[15] Systems Development Lifecycle [16] and much of the engineering design literature.[17]

Example sequence of stages

Typical stages consistent with The Rational Model include the following.

Each stage has many associated best practices.[19]

Criticism of The Rational Model

The Rational Model has been widely criticized on two primary grounds

  1. Designers do not work this way – extensive empirical evidence has demonstrated that designers do not act as the rational model suggests.[20]
  2. Unrealistic assumptions – goals are often unknown when a design project begins, and the requirements and constraints continue to change.[21]

The Action-Centric Model

The Action-Centric Perspective is a label given to a collection of interrelated concepts, which are antithetical to The Rational Model.[10] It posits that:

  1. designers use creativity and emotion to generate design candidates,
  2. the design process is improvised,
  3. no universal sequence of stages is apparent – analysis, design and implementation are cotemporal and inextricably linked [10]

The Action-Centric Perspective is a based on an empiricist philosophy and broadly consistent with the Agile approach [22] and amethodical development.[23] Substantial empirical evidence supports the veracity of this perspective in describing the actions of real designers.[20]

Descriptions of design activities

At least two views of design activity are consistent with the Action-Centric Perspective. Both involve three basic activities.

In the Reflection-in-Action paradigm, designers alternate between “framing,” “making moves,” and “evaluate moves”. “Framing” refers to conceptualizing the problem, i.e., defining goals and objectives. A “move” is a (tentative) design decision.[9]

In the Sensemaking-Coevolution-Implementation Framework, designers alternate between its three titular activities. Sensemaking includes both framing and evaluating moves. Implementation is the process of constructing the design object. Coevolution is “the process where the design agent simultaneously refines its mental picture of the design object based on its mental picture of the context, and vice versa”.[24]

Criticism of the Action-Centric Perspective

As this perspective is relatively new, it has not yet encountered much criticism. One possible criticism is that it is less intuitive than The Rational Model.

Philosophies and studies of design

There are countless philosophies for guiding design as the design values and its accompanying aspects within modern design vary, both between different schools of thought and among practicing designers.[25] Design philosophies are usually for determining design goals. A design goal may range from solving the least significant individual problem of the smallest element, to the most holistic influential utopian goals. Design goals are usually for guiding design. However, conflicts over immediate and minor goals may lead to questioning the purpose of design, perhaps to set better long term or ultimate goals.

A 1938 Bugatti Type 57SC Atlantic from the Ralph Lauren collection. "Form follows function" can be an aesthetic point of view that a design can heighten, as often seen in the work of the Bugattis, Ettore, Rembrandt, and Jean.

Philosophies for guiding design

A design philosophy is a guide to help make choices when designing such as ergonomics, costs, economics, functionality and methods of re-design. An example of a design philosophy is “dynamic change” to achieve the elegant or stylish look you need.

Approaches to design

A design approach is a general philosophy that may or may not include a guide for specific methods. Some are to guide the overall goal of the design. Other approaches are to guide the tendencies of the designer. A combination of approaches may be used if they don't conflict.

Some popular approaches include:

  • KISS principle, (Keep it Simple Stupid, etc.), which strives to eliminate unnecessary complications.
  • There is more than one way to do it (TIMTOWTDI), a philosophy to allow multiple methods of doing the same thing.
  • Use-centered design, which focuses on the goals and tasks associated with the use of the artifact, rather than focusing on the end user.
  • User-centered design, which focuses on the needs, wants, and limitations of the end user of the designed artifact.

Methods of designing

Design Methods is a broad area that focuses on:

  • Exploring possibilities and constraints by focusing critical thinking skills to research and define problem spaces for existing products or services—or the creation of new categories; (see also Brainstorming)
  • Redefining the specifications of design solutions which can lead to better guidelines for traditional design activities (graphic, industrial, architectural, etc.);
  • Managing the process of exploring, defining, creating artifacts continually over time
  • Prototyping possible scenarios, or solutions that incrementally or significantly improve the inherited situation
  • Trendspotting; understanding the trend process.

Philosophies for the purpose of designs

In philosophy, the abstract noun "design" refers to a pattern with a purpose. Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity.

To study the purpose of designs, beyond individual goals (e.g. marketing, technology, education, entertainment, hobbies), is to question the controversial politics, morals, ethics and needs such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs. "Purpose" may also lead to existential questions such as religious morals and teleology. These philosophies for the "purpose of" designs are in contrast to philosophies for guiding design or methodology.

Often a designer (especially in commercial situations) is not in a position to define purpose. Whether a designer is, is not, or should be concerned with purpose or intended use beyond what they are expressly hired to influence, is debatable, depending on the situation. In society, not understanding or disinterest in the wider role of design might also be attributed to the commissioning agent or client, rather than the designer.

In structuration theory, achieving consensus and fulfillment of purpose is as continuous as society. Raised levels of achievement often lead to raised expectations. Design is both medium and outcome, generating a Janus-like face, with every ending marking a new beginning.

Terminology

The word "design" is often considered ambiguous depending on the application.

The new terminal at Barajas airport in Madrid, Spain

Design and art

Design is often viewed as a more rigorous form of art, or art with a clearly defined purpose. The distinction is usually made when someone other than the artist is defining the purpose. In graphic arts the distinction is often made between fine art and commercial art. Applied art and decorative arts are other terms, the latter mostly used for objects from the past.

In the realm of the arts, design is more relevant to the "applied" arts, such as architecture and industrial design. Today the term design is widely associated with modern industrial product design as initiated by Raymond Loewy and teachings at the Bauhaus and Ulm School of Design (HfG Ulm) in Germany during the 20th Century.

Design implies a conscious effort to create something that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing. For example, a graphic artist may design an advertisement poster. This person's job is to communicate the advertisement message (functional aspect) and to make it look good (aesthetically pleasing).

The distinction between pure and applied arts is not completely clear, but one may consider Jackson Pollock's (often criticized as "splatter") paintings as an example of pure art. One may assume his art does not convey a message based on the obvious differences between an advertisement poster and the mere possibility of an abstract message of a Jackson Pollock painting. One may speculate that Pollock, when painting, worked more intuitively than would a graphic artist, when consciously designing a poster. However, Mark Getlein suggests the principles of design are "almost instinctive", "built-in", "natural", and part of "our sense of 'rightness'."[26] Pollock, as a trained artist, may have utilized design whether conscious or not.

A drawing for a booster engine for steam locomotives. Engineering is applied to design, with emphasis on function and the utilization of mathematics and science.

Design and engineering

Engineering is often viewed as a more rigorous form of design. Contrary views suggest that design is a component of engineering aside from production and other operations which utilize engineering. A neutral view may suggest that design and engineering simply overlap, depending on the discipline of design. The American Heritage Dictionary defines design as: "To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent," and "To formulate a plan", and defines engineering as: "The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.".[27][28] Both are forms of problem-solving with a defined distinction being the application of "scientific and mathematical principles". How much science is applied in a design is a question of what is considered "science". Along with the question of what is considered science, there is social science versus natural science. Scientists at Xerox PARC made the distinction of design versus engineering at "moving minds" versus "moving atoms".

Jonathan Ive has received several awards for his design of Apple Inc. products like this laptop. In some design fields, personal computers are also used for both design and production

Design and production

The relationship between design and production is one of planning and executing. In theory, the plan should anticipate and compensate for potential problems in the execution process. Design involves problem-solving and creativity. In contrast, production involves a routine or pre-planned process. A design may also be a mere plan that does not include a production or engineering process, although a working knowledge of such processes is usually expected of designers. In some cases, it may be unnecessary and/or impractical to expect a designer with a broad multidisciplinary knowledge required for such designs to also have a detailed specialized knowledge of how to produce the product.

Design and production are intertwined in many creative professional careers, meaning problem-solving is part of execution and the reverse. As the cost of rearrangement increases, the need for separating design from production increases as well. For example, a high-budget project, such as a skyscraper, requires separating (design) architecture from (production) construction. A Low-budget project, such as a locally printed office party invitation flyer, can be rearranged and printed dozens of times at the low cost of a few sheets of paper, a few drops of ink, and less than one hour's pay of a desktop publisher.

This is not to say that production never involves problem-solving or creativity, nor that design always involves creativity. Designs are rarely perfect and are sometimes repetitive. The imperfection of a design may task a production position (e.g. production artist, construction worker) with utilizing creativity or problem-solving skills to compensate for what was overlooked in the design process. Likewise, a design may be a simple repetition (copy) of a known preexisting solution, requiring minimal, if any, creativity or problem-solving skills from the designer.

An example of a business workflow process using Business Process Modeling Notation.

Process design

"Process design" (in contrast to "design process" mentioned above) refers to the planning of routine steps of a process aside from the expected result. Processes (in general) are treated as a product of design, not the method of design. The term originated with the industrial designing of chemical processes. With the increasing complexities of the information age, consultants and executives have found the term useful to describe the design of business processes as well as manufacturing processes.


See also

Design disciplines

Commerce

Applications

Communications

Scientific and mathematical

Physical

Design approaches and methods

Design organizations

Design Awards

Design tools

Design as intellectual property

Impact of design

Design Museums and Education Centres

Studying design

Designs for the future

Footnotes

  1. ^ See dictionary meanings in the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, at Dictionary.com (esp. meanings 1-5 and 7-8) and at AskOxford (esp. verbs).
  2. ^ Ralph, P. and Wand, Y. (2009). A proposal for a formal definition of the design concept. In Lyytinen, K., Loucopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., and Robinson, W., editors, Design Requirements Workshop (LNBIP 14), pp. 103-136. Springer-Verlag.
  3. ^ Ralph, P. and Wand, Y. (2009). A proposal for a formal definition of the design concept. In Lyytinen, K., Loucopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., and Robinson, W., editors, Design Requirements Workshop (LNBIP 14), pp. 103-136. Springer-Verlag, p. 109.
  4. ^ see Simon, H. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, USA; Alexander, C. (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Harvard University Press.
  5. ^ see Simon, H. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, USA; Eekels, J. (2000) On the Fundamentals of Engineering Design Science: The Geography of Engineering Design Science, Part 1, Journal of Engineering Design (11), pp. 377-397
  6. ^ Brinkkemper, S. (1996) Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools, Information and Software Technology (38:4), p. 275-280.
  7. ^ (Dorst and Dijkhuis 1995, p. 261)
  8. ^ Brooks 2010
  9. ^ a b c (Schön 1983)
  10. ^ a b c d (Ralph 2010)
  11. ^ (Dorst and Cross 2001)
  12. ^ (Newell and Simon 1972; Simon 1969)
  13. ^ (Pahl and Beitz 1996)
  14. ^ (Brooks 2010)
  15. ^ (Royce 1970)
  16. ^ (Bourque and Dupuis 2004)
  17. ^ (Pahl et al. 2007)
  18. ^ Cross, N., 2006. T211 Design and Designing: Block 2, page 99. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
  19. ^ Ullman, David G. (2009) The Mechanical Design Process, Mc Graw Hill, 4th edition
  20. ^ a b (Cross et al. 1992; Ralph 2010; Schön 1983)
  21. ^ (Brooks 2010; McCracken and Jackson 1982)
  22. ^ (Beck et al. 2001)
  23. ^ (Truex et al. 2000)
  24. ^ (Ralph 2010, p. 67)
  25. ^ Holm, Ivar (2006). Ideas and Beliefs in Architecture and Industrial design: How attitudes, orientations and underlying assumptions shape the built environment. Oslo School of Architecture and Design. ISBN 82-547-0174-1.
  26. ^ Mark Getlein, Living With Art, 8th ed. (New York: 2008) 121.
  27. ^ American Psychological Association (APA): design. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/design
  28. ^ American Psychological Association (APA): engineering. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/engineering
  29. ^ Examines the role of embedded behaviour in human environments.
  30. ^ Concerns the existence and construction of mathematical set systems that have specified numerical properties.
  31. ^ Actively involving users in the design process.
  32. ^ Drafting and other forms of modelling.
  33. ^ Includes economic, environmental and political issues.

Bibliography

Ash, K,Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R.C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., and Thomas, D. "Manifesto for agile software development," 2001. Available: http://www.agilemanifesto.org/. Accessed: June 22, 2010

Bourque, P., and Dupuis, R. (eds.) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK). IEEE Computer Society Press, 2004.

Brooks, F.P. The design of design: Essays from a computer scientist, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2010, 448 pages.

Cross, N., Dorst, K., and Roozenburg, N. Research in design thinking, Delft University Press, Delft, 1992.

Dorst, K., and Cross, N. "Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution," Design Studies (22), September 2001, pp 425–437.

Dorst, K., and Dijkhuis, J. "Comparing paradigms for describing design activity," Design Studies (16:2) 1995, pp 261–274.

McCracken, D.D., and Jackson, M.A. "Life cycle concept considered harmful," SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes (7:2) 1982, pp 29–32.

Newell, A., and Simon, H. Human problem solving, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, 920 pages.

Pahl, G., and Beitz, W. Engineering design: A systematic approach, Springer-Verlag, London, 1996.

Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., and Grote, K.-H. Engineering design: A systematic approach, (3rd ed.), Springer-Verlag, 2007.

Ralph, P. "Comparing two software design process theories," International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2010), Springer, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2010, pp. 139–153.

Royce, W.W. "Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques," Proceedings of Wescon, 1970.

Schön, D.A. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, Basic Books, USA, 1983.

Simon, H.A. The sciences of the artificial, (1st ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1969.

Truex, D., Baskerville, R., and Travis, J. "Amethodical systems development: The deferred meaning of systems development methods," Accounting, Management and Information Technologies (10:1) 2000, pp 53–79.