Hello Gavin, With due respect, your description of the relationship of architects and structural engineers is so far off, I almost don't know where to begin! You are trying to explain a computing design phenomenon with an example that simply doesn't hold water.
I'm not arguing what Spanish architects know or are trained in. I just don't know any architect worth their salt who thinks structural engineers compromise their vision (and I do know quite a few of them). The closest you can get using architecture is that architects have to be structural engineers at a macro level, and structural engineers need to produce micro level structural design. Architects are trained in conducting structural calculations, but are generalists in the sense that at design-time they only need to be able to figure out how/where the stresses are going to be, and how large the forces are (without need for obtaining three decimals of the unit) so they can design in appropriate structural elements. The structural engineer's job is to build on that wide-base design foundation with detailed calculations and report back change suggestions if the original design will falter in some respect. The same holds true for services like sewer, electrical, and other parts that make architecture function. Architects wouldn't be called so if they weren't versed in all the various facets of building to a significant degree. To say that without being trained as structural engineers, they wouldn't command respect from the structural engineer is not only false, but also makes the situation hopeless. After all, if successful collaboration requires one party to be as good at the others' work as the others' themselves, there isn't really any collaboration. What I agree with you on is that for Interaction Designers to be effective they have to have exposure and some level of expertise with all various parts of computing enterprise, and sometimes with those outside it - coding, databases, QA, cognition, art, and so on. Otherwise it will be hard to orchestrate the whole endeavor the way an architect does in building architecture. But it seems that architecture is often thought to be a close parallel to our world, and I assert that it isn't really so all the time. With overdependence on architecture to make our case, we risk causing misinformation about both architecture and IxDA. IMO&E. -Peyush <Like the interaction designer and the developer, its a trying relationship, where the architect often feels their vision for a building is compromised by the structural engineer.><snip>< When a Spanish architect goes to a structural engineer with a design and the ever safe playing structural engineer sees something that is tricky to do and says "thats column needs to be moved out of there" they can trump the statement with sound structural calculations, where as the architect lacking structural engineering training, grumbles and goes back and makes changes to the plan, with the end result that they feel their design has been compromised. By training the architecture as a structural engineer, the dynamic of the traditional architect/engineer relationship has changed. The engineer respects the architects opinion as a peer. The architect can also create better buildings as they can push the limits of the construction but don't break them, thus the architects vision almost never needs to be changed.> On 13 Apr 2008, at 04:11, Oleh Kovalchuke wrote: > > Drucker is right, he describes the way the economy works in a > desire-fuelled corporate society (the US, especially post WWII). > > ----- > > Why developers are like politicians, when they refer to generic > "user": > They use the term (those, who do) out of > > 1) arrogance > 2) insecurity > 3) for control > > -- three closely related motives. > > Relevant quotes from the Chomsky's lecture (Part 2): > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVgEQmwb2LA > > "The specialized class, the responsible men do the thinking, planning, > understand the common interest. The 'bewildered herd', they have a > function > too -- to be spectators... The compelling moral principle behind > it: The > mass of the public is too stupid to be able to understand things..." > > -- > Oleh > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
