jamin.org

I received a report from the field about Dick Buchanan’s speech at the design conference in Lisbon last week. While subjective, I found it interesting and got permission to share it with you.

Buchanan tells us that the design methods movement of the 1940s was largely concerned with design potentialities, productive science (the act of design) and design, i.e., the conception and creation of design products.

In the 1960s he refers to Alexander, Archer, and Chris Jones as three theorists that dealt with classic dialect (the use of patterns to resolve conflict), productive science and rhetoric (in regards to chance and possibility as opposed to the process of logical analysis), respectively.

Today, Buchanan says, the result of the separation of the design methods movement can be recognized as a group of different arts that deal with the practice of poetic, dialectic, and rhetoric (he refers to Horst Rittle and the art of argumentation that deal with issues and problems as rhetoric. In fact he gave quite a few personal examples about the nature and practice of rhetoric in design institutions). Furthermore the focus on design as a science contributed to the collapse of the design methods movement. (Throughout the conference there were quite a few objections and warnings against the introduction of cognitive science into design theory and practice.)

In conclusion, Buchanan says the theorists of the design methods movement did not account for the contextualization of design in intellectual culture (or cultural settings). He finished his speech by telling us that this was now our role in developing design methods.

This may be Dick’s main argument in all of his work that draws on a liberal arts perspective. This approach may be why the arts can be used as a foundation for design theory and practice.

Dick Buchanan is in Lisbon for the 2006 Design Research Society International Conference, so today Carl DiSalvo filled in, and nearly stumped us by asking a basic question about our current topic of interest: the arts.

“Why learn the arts” he asked.

There was a pause, perhaps because it was a tough question to start the morning, or perhaps because we hadn’t considered the why.

I mean, I hadn’t, which led me to think that I should think more.

Looking back over my notes from Buchanan, he made a point of saying that our culture, and by culture I mean human culture, is grounded in the arts. If this is the case, and we’re concerned with human-centered design, then the arts seem significant indeed.

But what did Carl have to say? Why learn the arts? Because it provides you with different ways of seeing the world and making sense of the world, taking it apart and putting it back together.

Making sense of the world, taking it apart and putting back together, sounds cool, doesn’t it? Actually, this sounds a lot like Dick’s mantra about making connections.

Carl warned of becoming too attached to a particular technique, and that arts fall apart when they are reduced to a technique. Also, if we get wedded to a theory, it becomes difficult to step back and produce and use other theories, methods, and techniques. Methods and theories are constantly evolving. This makes sense, of course. But I had not given it consideration.

He continued by saying it’s important to know the art and to not simply take on a technique without understanding the driving questions, theories, and methods that formed the technique.

Part of me thinks this is obvious. Another part of me thinks it’s good stuff. Which part of me will prevail?

Regardless, I think it’s really cool to think about. And I am intrigued about our continued learning of the arts and how it will apply to solving design problems.

Last week we had to turn in our first paper for Dick Buchanan’s design seminar course. The first four pages were to discuss the central features of each of the four modes of interaction we had studied. The next two pages were to discuss the relationship of form and matter in the four modes.

This was not to be an “academic” paper, Dick said. Reading it over again, I wish my paper was more conversational. I wish it was something that you, whoever you are, could read and understand. I don’t think I succeeded.

I assumed an understanding of the authors and the ideas. So it will likely confuse lay readers.

In general, I did not feel like I had enough space to fully develop the ideas of the four perspectives. So it became an editing task whereby I threw out a lot. However, I feel that as a result, I glossed over the main points.

That is not to say a good discussion given the constraints is not possible. Rather that it made it more difficult for me.

But, for what it’s worth, here is my paper, in its entirety.

Part 1: Four Perspectives on Interaction

In this essay, I will briefly discuss the central features of the four modes of interaction: entitative (first mode: person to person); existential (second mode: person to person); essentialist (third mode: person to environment); and ontological (fourth mode: person to cosmos). Through the comparison and contrasting of the four modes, we can see how each approaches interaction in different ways.

The entitative approach is about interface interaction. We have two entities that come into contact, and an encoding and decoding of data, or the transmission of information back and forth. Weaver offers an information processing system diagram that demonstrates the transmission of data.¹ Two key features that come out of Weaver’s system are the presence of noise, and the need for redundancy. Noise is the disruption of the information that may affect its interpretation or delivery. Redundancy is repeating the transmitted message to overcome the effects of noise. Fiske believes redundancy is “absolutely vital,” for without it, communication does not take place.² For designers, this means ensuring your message is clearly communicated given the presence of noise.

When talking about transmitting information, we are not talking about people. This is one of the key distinctions of the first mode. We are dealing with thing-to-thing interaction. Even Simon, who gives us Thinking Man, still relates cognition to an information processing system.³

Chunking is also a key term of the first mode. The idea of chunking is useful in consideration of how to structure data that it may be more easily accessible by grouping it into meaningful chunks.

Overall the first mode takes interaction and breaks it down to its parts, going from complex to simple. This mode of interaction tends to be bodies, their properties, and the impressions we have of them. A designer working from this perspective needs to understand the underlying mechanisms.

Quite different from the first mode, where people are things, the second mode defines humans as sentient beings and introduces the idea of assumptive world. This idea is strong with Barnlund, who suggests there is no meaning in the world, and implies that humankind cannot survive without meaning, so we create it.⁴ In this approach, we’re concerned with making meaning. When dealing with this mode, the designer must recognize the different assumptive worlds, and understand those differences, in order to find productive communication.

Goffman examines the meaning of facial engagements, and gives us a model for defining the whole of an interaction with initiation, maintenance, and leave-taking.⁵ This is an important distinction from Weaver, who only seems to care about the data. From knowing about facial engagements, we can begin to understand how to engineer an interaction.

Bergson continues with the idea of creating meaning of the world by suggesting that duration and motion are created by the mind, and that we break space up and measure it in order to communicate, and to promote social life.⁶ The promotion of social life is also theme for Barnlund.

Another important point is the role of emotion. Since we are dealing with people, emotion has an impact on the effectiveness of the communication in this mode.

The important aspect of the third mode of interaction is that the environment affects interaction. Contrary to the second mode, Dewey asserts that it is not an absurd world. He says there is content out there—the environment, which we may refer to as subject matter, which needs to be sorted out, because it pushes back.⁷

Also very different from the first two modes, in this mode, subject matter has meaning. As designers approaching a problem from this perspective, understanding the subject matter is essential as the environment plays a part in forming the experience.

Differing from Goffman’s initiation, maintenance, and leave-taking, Dewey defines the form of an interaction as inception, development, and fulfillment.⁸ From this perspective, the goal of the designer is fulfillment, or consummation, of the experience.

For Dewey, form and content are intimately connected, whereas Goffman barely mentions it. This mode is about shaping of form and understanding the content. Burke even suggests that matter doesn’t exist without being in form.⁹ This focus on the form is another difference from the previous modes, because in this mode we design by beginning with the whole, the form.

Perhaps most important to designers is Aristotle’s Poetics, which is about the discovery and invention of new forms. Again with Aristotle, form and matter are connected. Thus when you’re talking about the interaction, you are talking about the form.

For the fourth mode, Plato introduces the idea of self-motion—”the very essence and meaning of the soul”—and implies that love is the objective of interaction.¹⁰ For Plato, love is a sense of connectedness between everything, which suggests there is meaning in the world. This is how the fourth mode differs from the assumptive world of the second.

This perspective acknowledges a rational order to things, and that things are connected reasonably. The difficulty for the designer is finding that connection. The subject matter is important, and thus we need to understand it, and get to the principle of how things connect. But if we can find that connection, we can help people participate in the whole of the cosmos, and by doing so, can enable them to become self-moving. To do this, we must know the truth about the particulars and be able to define them. Plato states that we must divide things by type until they can no longer be divided.¹¹

The four modes of interaction offer the designer a place to turn for help in approaching interaction design problems. Thus it is important to understand each in order to design for interaction.

Part 2: Relationship Between Form and Matter

Throughout the four modes of interaction, form and matter play different roles. The importance of their relationship changes depending on the perspective of the mode.

In the first mode, the form is the medium of the interaction, or the channel. The form allows for the transmission of data from sender to receiver. The matter in this case is the data being sent. However, the matter in this mode does not get much attention. Whether we are sending smoke signals or making a phone call, it does not matter whether the actual message is “help!” or “I love you.” What matters here is the transmission of information through the medium, or the form.

The second mode deals with the interaction between people. This communication between two people or parties is also the form. The clearest example of this form is Goffman’s initiation, maintenance, and leave-taking.¹² Conversations, or facial engagements, represent the form of the interaction. Someone might initiate a conversation. There is then a period of maintenance: a reciprocal exchange of words. The conversation ends when the two parties take leave.

It is important to note that what initiates the conversation, how it is maintained, and the method of leave-taking are independent of the form of the conversation. Like the first mode, the content is not the focus.

Strikingly different from the first two modes, in the third mode, form and matter are inseparable. Form is everything. Dewey might say that the experience is the form. Burke defines form as the arousing and fulfillment of desire.¹³ And Dewey gives us a sequence of terms to describe the form: inception, development, and consummation. This differs from Goffman’s initiation, maintenance, and leave-taking due to the importance of the subject matter in the interaction.

In defining the individualization of forms, Burke states that such individualization “constitutes the bridge by which we move from a consideration of form to a consideration of subject matter.”¹⁴ We use the form to access the content.

We might also say that the relationship between subject matter and form is what makes the experience. In this mode, the designer must know about the subject matter, because the subject matter—the environment—pushes back. Unlike the second mode, the conversation is the subject matter.

Another distinction of this mode is that matter does not exist without being in form. Aristotle suggests the interaction of form and matter are always connected: “without action there can be no tragedy.”¹⁵ The shaping of form and the understanding of the content is what this mode is about.

The fourth mode of interaction is concerned with the whole in relationship to its parts. In this case, the matter is the parts. Through recognition of how the parts fit together, we develop the form: the connection to all the parts. Again, here, like the third mode, and contrasting with the first two modes, subject matter plays a larger role in understanding and designing for the interaction. We connect the parts to realize the nature of the whole. An example of this relationship is writing to thought, where writing is the subject matter—the parts—that when connected creates thought—the form.

The key differences between the modes of interaction are their dealing with the subject matter. In the first two, subject matter is not that important, whereas for the last two, the subject matter and the form have a close relationship.

1. Warren Weaver, “The Mathematics of Communication,” in Basic Readings in Communication Theory, ed. C. David Mortensen (Harper & Row, 1979) 29.
2. John Fiske, “Communication Theory,” 10.
3. Herbert Simon, Models of Thought, Vol. 1. (Yale University Press, 1979), x.
4. Dean C. Barnlund, “Communication: The Context of Change,” in Basic Readings in Communication Theory, 7.
5. Erving Goffman, “Facial Engagements,” in Basic Readings in Communication Theory, 141.
6. Henri Bergson, Time and Free Will.
7. John Dewey, Democracy and Education, 11.
8. John Dewey, Art as Experience, 35.
9. Kenneth Burke, “The Nature of Form,” in Contemporary Rhetoric: A Conceptual Background with Readings ed. Ross Winterowd (New York: Harcourt College Publishing, 1975) 194.
10. Plato, “Phaedrus,” in Selected Dialogues of Plato, trans. Benjamin Jowett (New York: The Modern Library, 2001), 143.
11. Plato, “Phaedrus,” 174.
12. Erving Goffman, “Facial Engagements,” 141.
13. Kenneth Burke, “The Nature of Form,” 184.
14. Kenneth Burke, “The Nature of Form,” 195.
15. Aristotle, “Poetics,” in Poetics and Rhetoric, trans. S. H. Butcher (New York: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2005) 19.

Today in our design seminar, we started what Dick Buchanan referred to as the third part of the course: making connections that are significant.

(Honestly, I’m not sure what parts one and two were, since I can only think of one previous part: defining the four modes of interaction. Nonetheless, there is so much brain stuff going on in this course, that lack of immediate recall has been the norm.)

We began talking about arts, methods, and techniques, but mostly focused on the arts.

What follows are my notes, which may not be coherent to anyone but me (and even that is questionable). But there are some interesting things in here that you might want to look at.

Notes

Arts: broad strategic perspectives
Method: Framework to accomplish a particular task
Technique: Little bits of business

Two methods: invention and visualization (there are many more)
These are who we are as designers

With arts, methods, and techniques, you know what comes next.

Our culture is grounded in the arts (human culture). Dick states that we are so close to it, and no one bothers to teach it. We’ve been obsessed with words and deeds, facts and data. There was a time when people began with principles.

Principles -> arts, methods, techniques -> data and facts
(these have been ordered differently throughout time)

Very seldom to we begin with principles.

Arts begin in practice; we assemble and formalize the things that work well.

Art = a habit of {thinking, doing, making} that demonstrates systematic discipline guided by a principle. product

Habit: when an art is so deep in you it becomes second nature.

Theme is a connection: it’s impossible to state a theme (a scary proposition, says Dick); all you can state are variations of a theme; every time you try to explain, it’s always a variation. This is one of the paradoxes of the arts: they connect, but every time you state it, you state a variation.

Arts provide connections: it’s all they do. Those connections are everything to us (as designers).

You don’t know where you start, and you don’t know where you’re going to end. Art is the connection.

Art is different from random behavior, but there are some arts that allow for random, chance things. Knowing that is part of the arts.

“There’s a method to his madness.” from Hamlet

Connections are themes. Two kinds of themes: formal themes (the arts); material themes. What we did in the second part was look at material themes. Every one of the works we looked at displayed an art.

We are at grad school to learn arts.

Book: formalization of habits. Good habits = good book. Bad habits = book sucks.

Confucius arts: six

Talks about the internal and the external. These are terms of art. Mental and physical. From these he builds a system of arts for Chinese culture. Dialectic. Two levels of meaning, literal and metaphoric.

Archery: staying on target, understanding the goal (internal art)
Chariot driving: strategic planning (external art)

Music (internal)
Ritual (external)

Art of numbers (internal)
Art of words (external)

Four arts of western culture that are important: Rhetoric, grammar, logic, dialectic

These cover the range of what designers try to do. Each has different ways of making connections, different things that work well.

• Rhetoric: invention in order to persuade people (lead people to do different things: iPod)
• Grammar: interpreting and expressing
• Logic: is about finding the necessary consequences (given certain situations, other things follow)
• Dialectic: all about discovering the truth, through the opinions of people

Grammar and logic like to fix the meanings of things. Topics and categories are some of the tools that operate around these arts.

These arts make connections with the past and the invention of new things. Everywhere you turn, you’ll find these arts. As a designer, your art should be inarted, imbued with art. These arts crisscross.

When an art works well, the outcome is product.

Four great classes of products:

• signs, symbols that communicate
• tangible, physical
• activities
• organizations, environments, systems.

How do we talk about products? One of the key matters for designers is the nature of products.

Did you make it this far?

We’re reading Plato to explore the fourth mode of interaction: person and cosmos. I’m sure most people would not understand why we’re reading Plato to learn about design. It’s possible there are those in my class that feel the same way.

I find it extremely interesting to approach Plato and Aristotle—his Poetics was the previous reading—with the intent of learning about design. It’s truly amazing that Dick Buchanan has pulled together all the texts that we have read as a study of interaction design. It’s amazing because there are actually lessons to be learned by reading the texts.

Right now we’re reading Phaedrus, which is a dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus. Part of the reason I like reading some of the assigned texts is that there are some good ideas in there, design-related or otherwise.

For instance, I found this particularly interesting:

But whoever has no touch of the Muses’ madness in his soul approaches the gates of poetry and thinks that he will get into the temple by the help of art—he, I say, is not admitted, and the poetry of the sane man is utterly eclipsed by that of the inspired madman.

At times I have felt like an inspired madman, though I’m not sure my poetry reflects that. So perhaps I like Plato because he reminds me of poetry, which I do not have much time for these days. I believe my muse is tucked away in the closet like a forlorn toy, waiting in the dark while I play with my newest infatuation, grad school.

But I digress…

Unlike previous texts, we’re spending two classes on Phaedrus. So I am not yet privy to the full enlightenment of how Plato fits into interaction. But even if I did, I’m not sure I could explain the connection. For I still cannot adequately explain to people what I’m studying.

Just tonight someone asked me, and I said “interaction design,” and I could immediately see the information was not being processed. So in acknowledgment of Warren Weaver, I repeated myself in a slightly different way. Still I could see a lack of understanding. Out of politeness or perhaps to maintain the conversation for a bit longer, I tried to explain, but to no avail. So I found an excuse to exit the conversation and took my leave.

If you understand what I just explained, then you must also be reading Plato right now. Though, of course, I was not speaking of Plato’s mode of interaction.

At any rate, Plato knows interaction. Who knew?

I’m going to preface this post by saying I am not going to do this topic justice. We read “Communication: The Context of Change” by Dean Barnlund for Dick Buchanan’s class. It was actually a really good read, and quite accessible, unlike some of the other readings.

The three questions Dick always asks about the reading are:

• What is interacting?
• How is it interacting?
• And why?

I bring this up, and also say I will not do the topic justice, because I would really like to explain what is going on with all the readings and how we are building this idea, or definition perhaps, of interaction.
However, I don’t think I can share the experience of what that means in words. I can only say that we’re exploring some really interesting and downright confusing texts that are challenging our ideas and possibly even causing us to grow.

But I digress (or maybe not, since I’m not really sure what my point is). I want to share some quotes from the Barnlund reading.

Unless this symbolic world is kept open and responsive to continuing experience, men are forced to live out their lives imprisoned within the constructs of their own inventions.

Except for the significances we bring, the happenings around us would be meaningless.

This is a rather existential view, you could say, which Dick called radical because it challenges the mainstream idea that life has meaning. I didn’t find it particularly radical because it seems I hold an existential point of view.

Nevertheless, the argument is we create our own meaning. And this is the point where I feel like I could type a million more words and still not say everything that is going on in my mind in regards to the rest of what Barnlund has to say about communication and barriers to communication and methods for reducing barriers, and how I find everything he has to say very useful in analyzing my personal communications, and how this all relates to interaction, and, of course, what the answers are to the three questions I mentioned at the beginning of this post.

But I can’t spare a million words at the moment, and you probably don’t have the time either. So I’ll leave you with my joke that all questions can be answered by some line from the reading.

For example, “Would you like to get dinner�”

Human understanding is facilitated where there is a willingness to become involved with the other person.

So yes, I would like to get dinner.

Or how about the question I have asked here before: Why do you blog?

The willingness to be transparent leads to a further condition that promotes healthy interaction.

I hope I’m promoting healthy interaction.

Much as I expected, my idea of “data” was completely off the mark. For 80 minutes this morning, Dick Buchanan tortured us with questions and rhetoric trying to extract the four types of data.

No one had a clue.

I’m not sure if Dick enjoyed pulling our teeth, or if he thought we should have figured it out sooner. And I’m not sure if everyone enjoyed the way he did it: putting people on the spot; discarding answers he didn’t want; telling people to speak up; telling people not to comment again (in jest); complementing people for an intriguing idea that had nothing to do with the matter at hand.

I felt dumb, threatened, challenged, appreciated, amused.

It Looks Like a Fish

That’s what I had to say about the wrench.

The Four Types of Data

Eventually, through much coaxing, the four types of data were named. I wrote them down.

I do not know how I will apply this knowledge. But I trust Dick will continue to drag us, kicking and screaming, away from the things we know into the uncharted lands of interaction.

In the interest of preserving this painful and yet amusing ordeal, I will not tell you what the four types are.

So Much Intrigue

One of the many intriguing comments Dick made was that learning stuff progressively decreases your creativity. How do you get beyond what people have told you to learn new things?

We didn’t react when he said that. He told us we should be very upset.

He further said there’s a tendency to interpret something quickly. Association and context fixes some of the meanings, and that’s dangerous. It does not allow for a more open interpretation.

But he did offer hope in that what’s fixed can be unfixed. However, rather than tell us how, he rhetorically asked (or maybe it wasn’t rhetorical) how does one go about becoming open or getting free?

Dick Isn’t for Everyone

I can see how some might not like his methods. He makes you feel uncomfortable and unsure of yourself. But I believe there’s a point, and that he’s actually doing what he does in our best interest. He’s not about bullshit, and I appreciate that. And he’s not afraid to push us, and I respect that.

The first day of class he said we aren’t in competition with each other; we are in competition with him. That’s awesome.

I like Dick.

Have I really already completed two days of grad school? Have I really only completed two days of grad school?

Surely, it’s not Tuesday already. And surely, it’s not only Tuesday?

I am just beginning to understand how this is going to rock my world. My life as I knew it before, my life as it was last week, is gone. What mattered last week matter’s little now.

You may think I’m being melodramatic. I’m not.

Searching for a Clue

In contrast to my previous conversation with JZ when I said I didn’t know what I wanted to do after the program, and I couldn’t yet define interaction design, where JZ seemed a bit perturbed, Dick said “it’s good not to know things.”

I embrace this statement, because there is a lot I don’t know, and also because tonight, as a homework assignment that’s due tomorrow, a homework assignment I have not yet started, we have to find a product and identify three distinctive kinds of data about that product, and write a short paper.

But what is data?

Dick said data is “evidence that interaction has taken place.” However, this does not fit my definition and thus puts me in a strange place.

Further, he said, “Interaction is a relationship (W) between X in a process of Y toward a goal or a purpose of Z.”

W = data
X = things, people, environment (what)
Y = how it takes place (how)
Z = principal, value (why)

Despite having this formula, it’s not clear to me what data is. Data is a relationship? Data is evidence? I only have vague notions about how these are compatible? But I’m confident that before I go to sleep, there will be a paper, which I have produced, that offers my best guess.

It’s likely that my best guess will be blown out of the water tomorrow. I can’t wait.

Mastering Connections

The first thing Dick said was that our masters is a mastery in making connections. This can have many interpretations. I don’t know if it’s what he meant, but in the past two days, mastering connections has meant having a beer with my peers and talking about design, and feeling connected, finally, to an entire group of people who share the same intrigue and passion.

It’s a beautiful thing.