[Sigia-l] Yet another IA vs Design discussion? (longish addendum)

[Groot, Boyd de]

Hi SIGIA-ellers!

As a long-time lurker I have noticed that occassionally the, what I call,
"IA identity and definition" discussion re-surfaces in one 
form or another and, as always, I find these both educational and
entertaining.

We might conclude that these debates are so heated because of the fact that
our
field (fields ? :-) is still very young and that, older fields like let's
say, 
industrial design or more particular car design, has settled this decades
ago around the time Ford ceased production of the Edsel...

... it seems we still have a long way to go..... :-) 

...just have a look at this forum for car designers. They have similar
discussions 
here and these are also very interesting and entertaining. Especially the
threads:

- engineering vs design                          4  May 04, 2002
- beauty or aesthetic appeal in design theory   30  April 27, 2002   

http://www.cardesignnews.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=5;hardse
t=100;start_point=140


have a nice weekend!

- Boyd de Groot



Some sniplets (skip and/or trim, if wanted):

--Industrial Design can be broadly described as creating the user
experience. This would include: What  the user sees, form, color, lighting,
graphics, etc. What the user touches, shapes of buttons, handles,  fabric,
etc. How the user interact with the product (car) in egress, seating
positions, vehicle  capabilities etc. Beyond automobiles, designers will
consider other senses like smell and taste (but I  guess that nobody wants
to make a smelly car). 
Engineers have always been a part of the design process and many are really
talented at designing.  Current thinking is that if you give a project to a
bunch people who are strictly designers, they will  advance the idea further
and make the engineers stretch a little more.
Engineering is figuring out how to make all these ideas come to life and
work well. This is a huge job,  so engineers tend not to be as concered with
many aspects of the user experience, like aesthetics.--

--Design tends to come before engineering. The trick is to have designers
that know enough about  enginering to relate to the engineers and vice
versa. This is rarely the case, so you'll find engineers  thinking that
designers are off in "La La Land" and designers that think that engineers
are a bunch of  dorks with zero creativity or vision of what an automobile
could be.-- 

--Think of the designer as an architect, concerned with both the appearance
and general layout of the  product...whether it be a car or a building, and
how it interfaces with the user. The engineer has the  same function in both
auto and building production, determining how to make the
designer/architect's  creations buildable and reliable. The designer does
not worry about what grade of steel or type of  fastener is needed, the
engineer does. On the other hand, many engineers are designers as well, and
designers need to know engineering principles lest their work be
impracticable. Pure art is for  museums and galleries. And pure engineering
may create cold forms that seem alien to potential  purchasers. Anything
made for sale and use must combine both disciplines.--

--I believe that the "designer" bridges the gap between the fantasy world of
the "stylist" and 
the cold absolutes of the "engineer". A good "designer" can work,
effectively, at both ends of the  fantasy/reality spectrum.
I think that the "designer's" job is to integrate as much of the "stylist's"
ideas and shapes, as possible,  with the engineering realities of chassis
structure, driveline, suspension and passenger accomodations.
"Engineers" work with materials, components, systems and structure,
"Stylists" work with shapes and  colors and "Designers" fit it all together
in the real world.--


--I knew that auto companies rigorously study the designs for market
appeal...herein lies the heart of  what my topic/question is about. Those
market studies, psychological studies, whatever they actually  are, are
intended to determine a) how widely appreciated a design will be, and b) how
strong the  admiration for a design will be. I've heard it said that they
would rather have a car rank 1st with a few  buyers, rather than 2nd with
many - but that simply may reflect only one company's strategy.

If you introduced that strategy in the setting of an archtiectural school,
the reaction would be  something like this: "You are designing for public
taste, or mass consumption, etc." - which would be  meant as a derogatory
comment. Here your critics would point to subjective notions of beauty, the
politically incorrect value judgements that you must make to assume a
'standard' of, or universal basis  to, beauty.

Are such discussions present in auto. design schools? Or is it still a
belief that people can recognize  beauty when they see it, and there is no
need to harp about relativism and subjectivity?--


--I think its fascinating that automotive designers have never felt the
necessity to deny that they were  after visual appeal and beauty, while in
architecture there was a period (arguably still is, as a result of
Modernism), that to admit you were in the pursuit of a good appearance was
considered shallow.  Designers felt it necessary to back up their work with
'functional arguments', forays into French  Literary theory, what have you.
While if you look at classical treatises of architecture, the authors
assume that the aim of architecture is commonly agreed upon (visual pleasure
being a big part of it),  and the bulk of the writing was geared to
explaining how to acheive that beauty.--
 
--And as the teachers liked shocking, conceptual art, it was annoying to see
top marks go to a couple of  painful psuedo intellectuals, who had very
polished concepts, but who's art displayed jack-all skill, was  basicaly an
eyesore(in my opinion) and bore only a token resemblance to their concept.
We were also  blankly told by our teacher (who happened to be the head of a
board for art curriculum for a large  region) with words to the effect that
doing art work that was beautiful or pretty or pleasing to the eye  was
pointless--

--This is certainly not an easy way to design and so many dismiss it as BS.
Others look at everything  else that must be considered in the creation of a
design, like manufacturability and ergonomics and  can't justify spending
time on visual aesthetics. Its nuts though, because with industrial design
you have  to do it all. It has to be beautiful, easy to use, environmentally
responsible and under budget. And don't  think for a moment that the
automobile is exempt from all this. Just because this particular tool aided
in  the sexual revolution and other new found personal freedoms, it is not
above the responsibilities that  other products have to adhere to.--