When I read and think about this thread, I see two somewhat related
aspects being addressed.
--------
One is about the significance of _methodology_.
Can RED be specified, broken down into steps, compared with other
methods, etc.? I suppose it can, and Jim has offered a three-phase
structure, but the attempt doesn't really seem to be enough for some
of the other list members.
The heart of the matter, I believe, is whether methods carry
knowledge or not. If RED could be "specified" extensively as a
procedural method, would that enable other designers to perform at
the levels Jim is suggesting -- by following the specified method?
In my personal opinion, the answer is no. Methods (and tools) are
never better than the people using them. And the phases identified by
Jim certainly contain no particular secrets to successful design
outcomes. As I read Jim's discussion of RED, the key is the abilities
that the RED designer holds.
--------
Which leads on to the other aspect of the thread: the nature of
_design ability_.
What is it that distinguishes a good designer in terms of skills and
knowledge? This is a question that has been addressed extensively in
the academic field of design studies, and typical answers include
things like
- a repertoire of genre-relevant design ideas that can be matched
rapidly against new design situations;
- craft skills to bring the outcomes of such matching processes into
concrete existence ("sketching");
- the ability to judge possible design ideas by predicting how they
are likely to work, based on internalized and operationalized
elements from research, observation, previous work in similar use
situations, etc.
A natural follow-up question is then how design ability can be
developed. Referring to design studies again, a typical answer is by
reflective practice (roughly: apprentice/master learning augmented
with meta-levels of reflection on learning processes). Methods (and
tools) play important roles in learning, but do not substitute it:
they do not carry knowledge in themselves.
As might be inferred, this way of thinking entails that design
examples are key resources in building design ability. The strong
emphasis on inspirational collections, canons, portfolios and crits
that you will find in design schools is no coincidence -- the work
taking place in such settings is always primarily about concrete
examples, and the underlying agenda is to provide the raw materials
for students to build their own repertoires and judgment skills.
The work of Donald Schön was already mentioned, and I second it as a
very useful introduction to this kind of thinking about design
ability. I could add Nigel Cross ("Designerly ways of knowing") as
another useful introductory resource.
--------
I know that these observations do not contribute to a "definition" of
RED, and perhaps they don't help the discussion forward. But the
bottom line for me is the role of methodology vs. the role of ability
in our field. My reading is that Jim is talking mainly about ability
(which makes perfect sense to me from a design-theoretical point of
view), whereas much of the discussion in the thread seems to be based
in a different mindset, where methods are seen as carriers of
(practical) knowledge.
Jonas Löwgren
PS. I would happily add my 21 years to Jared's accumulated-design-
experience tally, although I have done most of it in academic
settings. Don't know if that counts.
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
