Wonder Lab / Post Exercise 3
In defining Design, our class seemed to initially focus on what we all thought Design was, rather than what each of our definitions for Design was. We seemed to want to come to a consensus. Because there are so many facets of design, however, it was hard for us to come up with an all encompassing definition. We found this easier to do when defining specific fields of design, especially when they dealt with work pertaining to a specific medium. Our attempt at coming up with a holistic definition for Design was partially due to wanting to differentiate ourselves as designers from others who have some design knowledge. As designers, how are we different from designers in software or engineering? Why are we different from engineers and scientists?
Our conclusion was that it has to do with the way we think. Not to say that people of other professions aren’t this way, but designers are trained to have a very versatile and adaptable mindset. Our goal is to create products that work well for a variety of people in either specific, yet variable situations. Design is about understanding others and their values, under constraints that can be quite ambiguous. Ambiguous because that is the very nature of dealing with a field that is so focused on people. People move from one choreographed experience to the next (to borrow the words of Vivian Qiu), but we all have different, circumstantial experiences. That’s what makes design so difficult.
As designers, we are trained to deal with this ambiguity. Our purpose is to find things that are broken and to fix them with a solution and to influence how this solution (product) is used, to anticipate how it may be misused and to prevent it, to interpret the social implications and effects of the product, and to do so in the best possible way. In this ambiguity, we are trained to research and determine the best solution based on contextual circumstances and use our findings to define our own constraints (while adhering to those of the client).
Design is all about context. It is about purpose and intent. It is about creating a solutions or experience that is, in the words of Courtney Pozzi, “powerful in its context.” But context is intrinsically unique, and that’s why design is hard.
With all this being said, this lab is meant to help me find my niche in design; to help me determine what circumstances and parts of life I want to design for.
Through our class discussions I am becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of becoming a particular kind of designer, perhaps in a specific field. This is a scary idea to wrestle with initially, because this idea means narrowing down. Narrowing down means fewer job options. Or I guess it means coming to terms with me being more suitable to certain jobs than others, whether through capability or personal values.
Many of us at CMU (like almost everyone in the world probably) want to be good at everything. As a “designer” I want to be good at everything in the field of Design, but this simply isn’t possibly, nor is it necessary. As a designer, I will be hired to join a team of capable employees. I will have a specific role within the field of design that will best align with my capabilities and values (hopefully). So what are my capabilities and my values? I’d like to focus on discussing my values below.
I find the variability in life very fascinating. I may be present in the same environment and interact with the same objects or people as someone else, but our experiences will be different. We see value in different things — we have different hopes and dreams, different opinions and memories, and different skills and abilities. This is why it is important to research and design for what people want and need in specific circumstances. It is about the individual’s experience, and the role each experience plays in the bigger picture of this individual’s life.
We all want to have good experiences and I find that my interests in design align with eliminating factors that may hinder someone from having a good experience, or to improve an existing experience so that it is less inconvenient and burdensome. This is a very generic statement and pretty much encompasses all of design, but this idea, which I am going to call empowerment from this point forward, is present in many areas of our life.
We can empower people:
-Socially
-Economically
-Educationally/intellectually
-Physically
There are many more, but these are the four I can think of off the top of my head.
Empowerment and improvement in one of these areas tends to breed improvement in another, at least in an individual so they are all equally important to address, but the one that resonates with me the most is the physical sphere. By physical I mean how we deal with our stuff as well as our bodies. It is not exclusive, but much of this area involves medical ability/disability. By medical disability I mean any physical disability someone may have or acquire through birth, illness, accident, fluke, or old age. I want to design for circumstances in which a physical disability hinders someone from being able to experience life they way they want to.
In being concerned in designing for contextual experience, my intrigue lies not only with the product or solution itself, but how this fits in with the rest of the person’s life. It is not just about improving the quality of the singular experience but about improving the quality of life.
Regarding assistive technology, it is not only about the problem this technology itself solves, but the role it plays in the user’s life as a whole — when moving from one choreographed experience to the next.
My answers to Vivian’s dichotomous questions:
Unique or Universal?
Unique
Easy or difficult (intuitive or not)?
Easy
Noticeable or Unnoticeable?
Depends on the circumstance. You’ll only notice what you need to notice.
