Erik Stolterman has been visiting Carnegie Mellon for the past few days, during which he gave a lecture on “The Design Paradox – and the nature of design research.” The premise of the talk, aimed at HCI researchers, was that HCI research, which is mostly aimed at improving design practice (his assumption), does not seem to influence practice. Hence, the paradox.
But the design paradox was not what interested me most. I was more intrigued by his argument that HCI researchers need to understand the nature of design; and for that matter, that designers themselves need to better understand what they are doing. Why? It helps practitioners to make the case for what they do. A more developed theory and philosophy of design will help designers recognize what they do and help other people understand that. This happens to be the basic premise of my thesis paper.
So what is it that researchers and designers themselves don’t understand? The rigor, logic, and discipline of design. “A good designer understands the rigor and logic of doing design in a disciplined way,” Stolterman says. After the lecture, I asked how we can better understand the rigor, logic, and discipline. He did not have an answer.
Nevertheless, the co-author of The Design Way had some great points about the nature of design and how it is different than art and science. In fact, Stolterman said he puts design on the same plain as art and science.
“Design is not art, design is not science, it’s its own tradition. It’s a choice to use design. An approach to change the world.”
As an approach, he argued, design gives us results that the other approaches don’t deliver. Design is set up to deliver unexpected outcomes. If we knew what we wanted, we wouldn’t use design, he said. Further, in understanding design, you must accept the complexities of design practice: mind set, knowledge set, skill set, tool set. In addition, must accept that design is mind and hand: sensibility and judgment; craft and skill.
He also provided a simple definition for judgment, which was great for me because I have been struggling to understand what this means in the writing of my paper. He said judgment is being able to recognize good quality. Now if I could just explain simply how a designer develops judgment, I’d be set.
As for interaction design, he said it is one of the most important fields in our society today. I got goosebumps when he said this, then quickly turned skeptical, then appreciative.
One remark that I didn’t understand was that someone who has no knowledge of the nature of design can move through the design process successfully. I thought I misheard him because it seemed like he was saying the opposite of this: that you need to understand the nature of design to move through the process successfully. This is a question I have pondered in my thesis.
Fortunately, I had the opportunity today to ask him to clarify the remark when he dropped in on our thesis meeting. Yes, he said, you can go through the design process without understanding design and be quite successful. But his belief is that understanding the nature of design will make you a better designer. I think I both believe this and disagree, and presume it will be on my mind for a while.
Overall, I really enjoyed the talk, even though it was very familiar. If you’re interested in these ideas, I recommend both The Design Way and Thoughtful Interaction Design, both of which I am referencing in my thesis.
Comments
2 responses to “Erik Stolterman talks Design at CMU”
I am sometimes amazed by how people can mix science and design. To me, roughly put, science means knowledge; design is going from a current state to a desired state.
Now, defining “current” and “desired” states requires knowledge and that is pretty much where science might come into play. Most of the time, we do not need it; people have a good understanding of “what works” without defining it rigorously in scientific terms. However, sometimes the differences are more subtle or seemingly subjective; that is where science, in the form of usability research for example, should come into play.
Nevertheless, science is more about problems than solutions and I think that is where design is underrated in our society. Design helps people solve problems; whether it’s an interaction design problem or organizational hierarchy problem. Sometimes only with tools, skill sets and mind sets of designers some problems can be overcome.
I think one problem with the notion of design is it’s historically too much associated with visual design and “making things look pretty”. And I wholeheartedly agree, as a prospective scientist with a deep-rooted interest in design, a better theoretical backing of design processes can only benefit not only the area of design but everyone else.
I think there is a correlation between science and design. Admittedly, I’m no scientist, but from what I’ve read, great discoveries in science tend to come from people who use their imagination to try understanding the world in creative ways. Einstein famously said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge…”
The difference, perhaps, is that designers seek to create something based on (or to adapt to) that understanding, while scientists often pass that sort of work on to others.