Questioning Coding — A designer’s Perspective
Coming to the end of the studio — Advanced Programming as a Design Tool for Prototyping, I have seen myself as well my peers start from a level of next to no or meagre understanding of the subject Object Oriented Programming to a position where I was able to plan, prototype and execute to a certain length and fidelity- a working project.
Over the course of 5 weeks, I was exposed to multiple themes and subjects simultaneously which as a designer got me thinking along the lines of merging all that I had learned into creative solutions right from the start. Researching and exploring the realm of ICT4D and e-governance in our country and at the same time maintaining a constant studio habit of practising to code in p5.js, I happened to identify some of my strengths and weaknesses through my individual and collective explorations through the course.
I often found myself extremely engaged during the stages of research & ideation. Aware of my inclination toward the more conceptualisation — related tasks in a project, I tried to focus on learning the tools that would enable me to take my project to the end, materialising my thoughts and ideas. Being an executor is not my forte and I sometimes did find myself struggling to grasp certain aspects of the programming language and how to put it into use. It is here too that I started questioning the need to know how to code.
As a designer, I face many situations wherein my works extends only to the level of a sketch, prototype or a simple model. This is primarily because of the skills I have mastered and tools I have gathered over the years. These mentioned sketches, prototypes or tools would contain creative solutions or design interventions that could enhance the very product/interface itself.
It is only when we have to look for ways to improve on something or eliminate problems that we also search for possibilities and means to do so. Often during the process of sketching to brainstorm and bring out creative solutions, the knowledge of what exists and what is possible and what is not poses as hurdles.
I have also faced situations wherein I am expected to work to not only accomplish the primary expectations as a designer, but also play the role of a mediator between client and back-end. Here I find it easier to understand and communicate with the client but relatively more challenging to do the same with the coder who breathes life into my designs.
In scenarios such as these, I see the significance of knowing to code as a designer. It would allow me to take my projects at least one-step further and test functioning versions of my prototypes. Having basic knowledge of coding would also eliminate the problem that designer face when trying to communicate their work to the coder. It not only makes the collaboration between the two effective but also simplifies the tasks to follow in the process. And lastly, knowing code allows me to simply know what’s out there for me to think of what can be done with what exists. This is something that I witnessed in the beginning of this class as well.
In this studio, the method chosen for us to learn the code under extreme time constraints was rather interesting. Dividing all the topics and functions that we needed to cover amongst ourselves, we were each assigned a set that we had to learn and demonstrate to all our peers. By doing so, we individually might not have mastered each topic but in terms of making everyone aware of the possibilities, this method proved successful. And since we worked and experimented well with our assigned topics, we could assist each other as and when we fumbled with functions.
The short read — The Designer’s Stance, An interview with David Kelley by Bradley Hartfield resonated with me and all that I had experienced and explored this studio course. David Kelley, the CEO of IDEO, one of the largest design firms in the world stated that the success of a designer depended on his/her mindset. In order to be successful one must possess a design mindset, which means keeping yourself open to possibilities and prepared to take risks. Thus for me to be able to improve myself as a designer, I saw the need for me to expand, open to the idea of trying something I hadn’t before and practice something that might not come naturally to me (in this case, coding in p5.js and experimenting with Object Oriented Programming). As Kelley put it “Good design takes creativity”, ‘creativity’ here does not refer to any sort of ingenuity or gifted talent but instead can be viewed as having been trained to think in a particular way and developing an openness to taking on challenges.
For a designer, confidence is a characteristic that either he/she is born with or has inculcated over time. This confidence is crucial in order to take the creative leap that most normally fear. Confidence is also necessary since designers need to create sans the fear of any idea being looked down upon, unaccepted or considered “bizarre” in any sense of the way by others.
The core difference between a simple problem solving task (which designers do accomplish) and what a designer truly aspires to do, is that they envision working beyond the boundaries of what already exist. Solving problems beyond context or simply creating something better or more than what the world has already seen.
There is also a huge way in which designers view a certain situation or problem. It is not broken down to mere steps and entities involved. Each component in a problem is as important as looking at the picture as a whole. This nonlinear way of viewing observing viewing and thinking, as well as considering the relationships, roles & goals of the entities involved is what makes a designer tackle the same problem that non-creatives solve using solely simple problem centric solutions. It can also be said that the presence of intuition is what sets design thinking apart.
Intuition is born out of experience. Which is why most people who are veterans in their respective fields of expertise (creatives or not) are also good designers since they know how and when to use intuition.
Exploration in this sense is very important as a designer as it is only through experiences, trial and error that a designer learns or experiences more which teaches him/her to work using his/her intuition better. Rewarding a failure equally as one would do for a success is important, as both are equally important after all.
As David Kelley speaks about engineering students having lesser hands on experience in recent times with actually working with automobiles rather than just computer programming, he emphasises the need and importance of experimenting first hand with the product itself. Physical experiences with the same can often invoke a different feeling.
This is true even in the case of designers. As designers, our brains are constantly working through out the process of design and creation, especially in the stages of ideation. It is here that we are expected to do “our bit” of making something better or solving a problem. Having ideated, sketched and prototypes, similar to and engineering student, it is necessary for designer to plunge into the pool of explorations and try executing these solutions hands on too.
“The designer has a passion for doing something that fits somebody’s needs, but that is not just a simple fix. The designer has a dream that goes beyond what exists, rather than fixing what exists”. Ultimately it is not solving problems that drive a designer. It is the thought of surpassing things that that already exist. The choice of being a designer stems from the constant need to fulfil our creativity. This aspiration to keep creating, keep thinking and seeing beyond the defined horizon is what makes this world a better place to live in. And as designers, we believe there is never an absence of possibility for “better”.
