[IxDA Discuss] Reductionism
I was reading this paper by Philip Galanter on "What is Generative Art?" and came across this (http://www.philipgalanter.com/downloads/ga2003_what_is_genart.pdf): "Science generally proceeds in a reductive manner, the thinking being that by breaking down complicated phenomena into its figurative (or literal) atomic parts one gains predictive and explanatory power. The problem with reductionism, however, is that it is often difficult to put the pieces back together again." I was trying to relate this to what we do with complex information. We also follow the scientists way by breaking down the information into parts (reductionism) and then build correlations of these parts to each other and (try to) present the user a "organized system". I feel the systems (or application in our context) fail when we can not put these pieces together. So I would like to know, have you experienced the problem of putting these pieces back together again? or Has anyone found a good solution to this problem? or an alternative? I would like to know various viewpoints on this. -sajid 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Reductionism
> So I would like to know, have you experienced the problem of putting > these pieces back together again? > or > Has anyone found a good solution to this problem? > or > an alternative? Card sorting exercise from Information Architecture. Several techniques described in David Straker's 'Rapid problem solving with Post-It notes': Post-Up; Swap-sort; Bottom-up tree. Oleh On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:56 PM, sajid saiyed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was reading this paper by Philip Galanter on "What is Generative > Art?" and came across this > (http://www.philipgalanter.com/downloads/ga2003_what_is_genart.pdf): > > "Science generally proceeds in a reductive manner, the thinking being > that by breaking > down complicated phenomena into its figurative (or literal) atomic > parts one gains > predictive and explanatory power. The problem with reductionism, > however, is that it > is often difficult to put the pieces back together again." > > I was trying to relate this to what we do with complex information. We > also follow the scientists way by breaking down the information into > parts (reductionism) and then build correlations of these parts to > each other and (try to) present the user a "organized system". > > I feel the systems (or application in our context) fail when we can > not put these pieces together. > > So I would like to know, have you experienced the problem of putting > these pieces back together again? > or > Has anyone found a good solution to this problem? > or > an alternative? > > I would like to know various viewpoints on this. > > -sajid > > 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 > -- Oleh Kovalchuke Interaction Design is the Design of Time http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Reductionism
sajid saiyed kirjoitti 21.2.2008 kello 21:56: > I was trying to relate this to what we do with complex information. We > also follow the scientists way by breaking down the information into > parts (reductionism) and then build correlations of these parts to > each other and (try to) present the user a "organized system". Talking about GDD: we've noticed that the first phases (research, modeling) are good for expanding our view about the problem domain: We need to figure out, which are the cards that need sorting. This part of the process feels like the opposite of reductionism, as the amount of information, viewpoints and insights (the whole domain) seems to expand. But during requirements, framework and design, as the cards "reveal themselves", the process feels a little like what you wrote above. It's about determining which goals can be achieved, which problems are blocking the way, how to break the problems into parts, and how to organize their solutions into blueprints. Thanks, Petteri -- Petteri Hiisilä palvelumuotoilija / Senior Interaction Designer iXDesign / +358505050123 / [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated." - Tim Peters 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
