[Sigia-l] Human-Centered Design 99% bad

[Groot, Boyd de]

Anne Miller <amiller at humanfactors.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> No. I'm saying that possibilities inherent in the design of a phone 
> book allow it to be used as a monitor stand.

> If it only served the intent of the designer, it would be an 
> expression of the designer and best displayed in an art gallery. Good 
> luck!

Who decides what the intent is of the designer? And is labelling it as a
piece of art enough to preserve this?
Consider the holocaust monument in Berlin. Children also use it to play
hide-and-seek and hopskotch. Of course,
certain opinion leaders cry out how shameful this is and that this was never
intended by the artist. Simple
checking with the artist of course learned that he is actually pleasently
surprised by this 'unintended' use and
has no problem with it. The opinion leaders on the other hand want to put a
fence around it (how ironic).

Anyway, I think Listera made a good point about different viewpoints to
design. The designer's and the cultural antropologist's. Every designer
knows (as does every writer, filmmaker, artist, etc.) that once a design is
out there,
he or she does not 'own' it anymore and it becomes an object of culture,
owned by the public. (This makes you both proud and modest at the same time,
I can say).
So, in my view, design is meant to be different things to different people.
And people shouldn't be so 'religious' about their viewpoint. 


Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>But what the heck is "design", then? What you're saying is pretty close to
the randomness of nature; a bit of rock falls of a cliff, smashes to the
ground and provides a perfect picnic table. Where's the *design*?

I should introduce you to some proponents of the "Intelligent Design" school
of biology here in Holland (yes, they are also here). There is no randomness
in nature ;-) But I am pretty sure The Almighty is surprised how a few
"possibilities inherent" in his design have worked out :-)


--Boyd