The most interesting thing I learned in grad school is that day-to-day
practice is saturated with theory, which guides the actions. It is often
subconscious or unenunciated theory, but all action is guided by SOME sort
of internalized theory, even if it is just a guy over a beer saying "I've
got a theory about that."
The risk is thinking that one's actions are not being guided by SOMETHING,
and every "something," even the idea, "I like this particular shade of
orange and am going to use it in every design I do" is based on a theory. It
may be a personal theory, but it is no less of a theory just because it
remains unarticulated as such. That is the illusion of the idea of "pure
practice."
So if you could articulate the theories or rules or guiding principles
involved in any given instance of practice, would they stand up to scrutiny?
Are their results defensible to justify using those same principles over and
over again, to justify using that same design process over and over again?
After all, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
results is the definition of insanity, just as "an unexamined life is not
worth living."
It's handy, "convenient," to claim that a particular instance of design
practice is not effected by theory, to "black box" one's work ("and then a
miracle occurs"). You don't have to be thinking about the theories every
minute while working, but finding and digging up the real theories of actual
practice, lore, and what is called "common sense" (but is actually nothing
more than unarticulated and personal or cultural "theories) is actually the
pursuit I'm most interested in. Theory without results from practice has no
use whatsoever, and doesn't just risk outcomes, it is part of the essential
nature of theory. If any given theory is unsupportable and indefensible from
actual successful practice that means the theory itself IS unsupportable and
indefensible. Responsible practitioners have to be empowered to call it out
as such, and should be able to make a good case.
Again, market forces may be the fly in this ointment, as I said before.
Define "success." What is good design if the market starts demanding "bad
design"? This is the conundrum I was raising by invoking the problems with
journalism as a profession with professional standards.
How might you intervene if the market forces in our field, SEO et al,
started demanding that the successful designs for our work must all
essentially become SPAM, look like spam, taste like spam, must be spam! Will
spam then define design success, or will IxDers be able to articulate some
supportable reasons why spam-based design is bad design? If it can't, if no
principles or theories rise above market forces, the field is vulnerable to
the same abuses that have ravaged journalism.
Chris
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Christine Boese wrote:
>
> The best thing grad school did for me was FORCE me to get into
> theoretical areas that I had natural resistances to, and FORCE me to justify
> and defend the theories that I wanted to hang on to like sacred cows.
>
>
> The thing that's been missing from this thing is the notion of balance.
> School teaches you primarily theory, while field work teaches you primarily
> practical experience. The best designers will be the ones that are equipped
> with both.
>
> If you have a great environment that can teach you theory and
> experimentation, then perhaps you don't need an advanced degree. If on the
> other hand you don't have that environment, or you want to teach as part of
> your profession, getting an advanced degree is a good option to consider.
>
> Balance.
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Todd Zaki Warfel
> President, Design Researcher
> Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
> ----------------------------------
> *Contact Info*
> Voice: (215) 825-7423Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> AIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Blog: http://toddwarfel.com <http://toddwarfel/>
> Twitter: zakiwarfel
> ----------------------------------
> In theory, theory and practice are the same.
> In practice, they are not.
>
>
________________________________________________________________
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
