 |
‹ | Flexible Designs and the Role of the Designer | < | Weekly Archives | > | How the IT Industry Really Works | › |  |
 |
 |
Competing Definitions of Design
design, language, philosophy
November 18, 2003, 07:54 PM
Dan has a post up about Dick Buchanan's definition of design:
"Design is the human power to conceive, plan, and realize products that serve human beings in the accomplishment of any individual or collective purpose."
Just for fun, let's compare and contrast this with my own stab at defining design:
"a deliberate action prompted by an understanding of the state of the world intended to transform the world into an improved state."
First off, Dick's definition explicitly mentions humans, whereas mine leaves the actors undefined. I think for all practical intents and purposes this is an unimportant distinction.
Secondly, Dick's incorporates a three-stage process into the definition; to design you must "conceive, plan, and realize". Mine doesn't discuss any of the activities that make up design. Perhaps it should.
Next, his specifically mentions products as the output of design. I prefer leaving this undefined, for some design processes have as their output a refined policy or organizational structure, or perhaps a new process for performing some task. These things aren't products unless you define "product" much more broadly than most people do.
Next, my definition calls out "understanding the world" as an essential component of design, whereas Dick's does not. Perhaps this is too prescriptive, since lots of design gets done without any formal attempt to understand the context in which it must fit. I'd argue that designers still require some (possibly incorrect) understanding to move forward with, which often may be based solely on their own assumptions.
Finally, my definition specifies that design attempts to improve the world (in the mind of the designers, anyway), whereas Dick's gives as the aim of design "accomplishment of any individual or collective purpose".
Dick is certainly correct that definitions cannot provide closure on all the important philosophical issues in the field. But it's still interesting to hear what words people choose to define the terms they use everyday. It often unveils subtle, but important, differences in people's understanding of the meaning behind those terms.
Posted by James Spahr on November 18, 2003 at 08:43 PM
My favorite definition (just because of the double meaning and the beauty of it's simplicity) :
Design is a Good Idea
www.emigre.com/COMOUSEP.php
Posted by Rob on November 19, 2003 at 02:05 PM
Sounds like a good definition, in line with the "lively" poetic definitions Dan mentions in his post.
Dick's and my definitions were more philosophical, more precise, but also more boring :). Each is suited for different purposes, really.
Posted by haven on November 24, 2003 at 04:32 PM
When Dick uses the word "product" he is talking about it in the broader sense of the word. He's referring to products, as many of us over in the ID program often do, as artifacts (often confused with product), services, systems, environments, etc. The best way to think about it is product is that which is produced, and it does not necessarily need to be a tangible thing.
Perhaps that clears up that matter a little. As for the rest, we'll save that for a chat over a beer.
Posted by Rob on November 24, 2003 at 04:53 PM
Point conceded. I could quibble with the practice of redefining a standard term to mean something different that it's popular definition, since that invites confusion. But if I did so I'd start down a path of devoting my life to arguing with half the philosophers, engineers, and other skilled professionals that have developed a substantial amount of jargon in their field. Some things you just gotta accept!
Posted by Smriti Gupta on March 12, 2007 at 12:20 AM
To me, the best definition of design still says, "design is a problem solving
excercise. The intricasies like identofications of problems comes engraved in this.
Posted by Kenneth Lynn on September 04, 2007 at 02:57 PM
Design – "the conscious selection and deployment of resources to achieve a specified objective" – is the key activity of the human race. Everything, including survival, depends on the quality of our design ability. We are designing our future. The design of the built environment (Architecture)is of particular importance because of its inescapable effect on our lives. “We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us.” (Churchill). Through the activity and appreciation of design we increase out understanding of our environment and of our place and potential within it. Vitruvius, writing 2000 years ago, identified three criteria essential in Architecture but applicable to all design - usefulness, sustainability and beauty. When we understand the significance of these three criteria we are in a position to make an objective judgement on the quality of design.