Design Approach & Practice
We as humans strive towards control in order to create a predictable environment that delivers on our needs and wants. We aim to reduce inherent complexities by dissecting and simplifying given situations. In science, it has been widely recognized that scientists successfully cope with complex processes of discovery and correlations mainly through a first-principles approach. This drive for simplicity creates a universally ideal world that results in condescension and disdain where the holistic picture is sometimes not contemplated. In design, complexity is cherished and seen as an enabler for positive and rich experiences. Stolterman (2008) states, “Design complexity is defined as the complexity a designer experiences when faced with a design situation”. As designers continue to face immense design complexities, a design tailored in a “designerly” approach may effectively allow designers to deliver an optimum state-of-the-art design. This begs the question; is there an opportunity to effectively apply scientific methods to the design practice? In this post, I am going to explore this notion and how a design methodology and process could impact the design outcome.
Design vs. Science
When it comes to solving a scientific dilemma or devising an answer to a complex design, an approach guided by a set of prescribed methods and processes can significantly improve outcomes. To determine whether we can leverage a scientific approach in our design practice, we need to better understand the fundamentals of scientific approaches.
Science emphasizes on structures and relationships and attempts to integrate them as universally accepted knowledge independent of time and place. This emphasis on the universal and existing is not easily applied in design since design focuses on the particular and non-existing (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012). Design aims to create a non-universal time-bound outcome with a set purpose and audience, through creating something unique and particular or creating the “ultimate particular” as explained below:
“Design practice is about the creation of a desired reality manifested as an ultimate particular. The ultimate particular is a design concept of same dignity and importance as truth in science. ”
The scientific method draws on cumulative knowledge to break problems down using scientific principles. Design considers the emerging qualities of the “whole” that encompass all situational aspects. Hence, embedding scientific research methods in design can result in a non-optimal solution that doesn’t address the “whole”. A common scientific experiment, a controlled experiment, where the outcome is measured after isolating and testing select variables would contradict the essence of design which is based on the overall experience and the idea of emergent qualities. For example, focusing on specific elements instead of the “whole” may result in a smartphone design that has the ideal shape and weight but lacks important practical and interactive aspects.
If we as designers focus on select elements to derive a universal outcome, the complexity of the design may be negatively impacted resulting in a weaponized design product where select design attributes are purposely prioritized to advance personal goals. According to Cade (2019), “Weaponized design - a process that allows for harm of users within the defined bounds of a designed system”. Design is commonly weaponized through “poorly considered trade-offs”, an outcome of impractical design processes oriented towards the reproduction of the “one-world ontology” that unwarily demolish indigenous ways of being. Hence, it is necessary to have a holistic design approach where design outcomes are tailored to given situations. In order to have design justice, the design should follow a “world where many worlds fit rather than the one-world” (Costanza-Chock, 2018: p.11).
The Design Approach
Design Process
A structured design process is needed to tackle design complexities systematically and effectively. Frayling (1993) explains that the design approach previously perceived as “messy” and “subjective” stemmed from designers inherently following a design process without explicitly illustrating it. Wolf et al (2006) maintained that we need to deal with design complexities with a designerly approach that demands “discipline” and “rigor”. This is essential for design and requires designers who leverage design processes to address design related complexities in order to achieve full design potential. Friedman (2019) states that “Design is first of all a process. The verb design describes a process of thoughtand planning”. The design process in Friedman’s eyes revolves around the theoretical disciplines and fields of practice, both of which are critical for design. Designers need to be aware of theoretical concepts in the design processes just like in the case of affordance. It is beneficial to identify and rethink affordances built into our everyday life in order to bridge the gap between user needs and abilities (Poggenpohl, 2018: p.122). By emphasizing on the affordance of a product in the design process, the designer can create a product that provides an intuitive and memorable experience.
The design process starts off with theory and research to construct knowledge. This is followed by ideation of design concepts and prototypes, testing with the users, and iterating to achieve a desired outcome. Additionally, the design process revolves around users and keeps them at the center of its composition. Sanders and Stappers (2008) even described the design process as “co-designing” in which the user is no longer the object of study. In fact, the user is given a role “expert of his experience” while the designer supports the “expert of his experience” by ideation and expression.
Design Research Method
Design research methods are foundational building blocks that strengthen the design practice depending on how “designerly” these techniques are. Cross (1999) describes design research by stating “the field of design research methods fall into three categories, based on people, process, and products: design epistemology (study of designerly ways of knowing), design praxeology (study of practices and processes of design), and design phenomenology (study of form and configuration of artifacts).” Based on the design situation and its requirements, designers choose an appropriate research method that shapes the design process and outcome.
In our first unit “UX design studio”, we used two research methods for each project. For our “UX of Gravity” project, we used Body Storming and Behavioral Mapping which helped us contextualize our designs in terms of environment, interactions, and objects. Body Storming helped us develop unexpected ideas after physically experiencing given situations. We learned that we do not notice much of our connection with the environment as a result of unconscious behaviors we develop. Through this method, we were able to physically test the effect of gravity on nature and human behavior. The second research method, Behavioral Mapping, enabled us to understand how people behave in prescribed environments (Sky Garden in our case) and how behavior changes when conditions change. After transcribing our behavioral recordings which were conducted in different weather conditions, we understood how peoples’ behaviors change as weather conditions change. We leveraged our findings to design an experiential space as our final project. A different research method (i.e., Storytelling), would have changed the project outcome as a result of previous user experiences shared in the storytelling exercise. Hence, the research method is a critical component of the design process and can impact the design outcome as each method is unique in its purpose and how it is executed.
For our “UX of Consciousness” project, we saw how our research method greatly influenced the design outcome. We also experienced the impact that other disciplines beyond design can have on design outcomes. Jeamsinkul and Sawasdichai (2002) state, “Design is a hybrid activity that encompasses many disciplines beyond itself, which blend depending on the nature of the research project.” In this project, the abstract storytelling research method, which we called, “Draw with your subconscious” greatly influenced our design outcome. Participants were asked to illustrate what they imagined on the abstract ink background and then share the experience triggered by looking at their drawings. The outcome, which we used on a bigger scale as an art therapy method, was influenced by the selected research method which projected the users’ subconscious.
Design Judgment
To act in a “designerly” way, designers should implement tools and research methods rigorously. Hence the importance of judgment in the design approach. Designers must fully understand the particularities and specifications of given design situations to select an effective design approach. This illustrates Stolterman (2008) idea “designers can be prepared-for-action but not guided-into-action”. To design successfully, we must be able to judge intuitively with a judgment that is not driven by rules, but rather logic. It is the designer’s judgment that allows the designer to tackle design complexities in a designerly manner. Flexibility constrained within the design process is essential to ensure that the process is not seen as cumbersome and highly rigorous. Hence, designers should have the flexibility to assess different design alternatives in parallel to ensure that an optimal design outcome is achieved.
Conclusion
The design process is not an algorithmic approach, on the contrary, it is an approach that deals with uncertainties and complexities. We as designers should recognize and accept complexities of design situations and consider them as drivers of creativity. The practical problem of design complexity can’t be dealt with by borrowing methods from the scientific field, but instead by acquiring tailored “designerly” approaches and techniques that account for context and particularity. This approach unites design research and practices more seamlessly.
In conclusion, design research supports the design practice and outcomes; however, we need to keep certain questions in mind when confronted with a design situation: What type of research is appropriate for this design task? Why is this the optimal research method and how will it support my design decisions? Will it improve the process’s efficiency or the quality of products while driving design innovation? These questions keep us mindful of the design processes and help us rationalize and support design practices.
References
Costanza-Chock, S. (2018). Design Justice, A.I., and Escape from the Matrix of Domination. Journal of Design and Science.
Cross, N. (1999). Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), p.5.
Diehm, C. (2018). On Weaponised Design - Our Data Our Selves. [online] ourdataourselves.tacticaltech.org. Available at: https://ourdataourselves.tacticaltech.org/posts/30-on-weaponised-design. [Accessed 20 Dec. 2019]
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, [online] 1(1). Available at: http://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/3/frayling_research_in_art_and_design_1993.pdf. [Accessed 10 Oct. 2019]
Friedman, K. (2019). Creating design knowledge: From Research Into Practice. [online] figshare. Available at: https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Creating_design_knowledge_from_research_into_practice/9343430. [Accessed 16 Oct. 2019]
Jeamsinkul, C. and Sawasdichai, N. (2002). Perspectives on Building a Foundation for Design Research. Visible Language, 36(2), pp.156-171.
Nelson, H. and Stolterman, E. (2012). The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. 2nd ed. London: The MIT press.
Poggenpohl, S. (2018). Design Theory To Go. USA: Ligature Press. p.120-130.
Sanders, E. and Stappers, P. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4(1), pp.5-18.
Stolterman, E. (2008). The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), pp.55-65.
Wolf, T., Rode, J., Sussman, J. and Kellogg, W. (2006). Dispelling “Design” as the Black Art of CHI. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Montreal, Canada.
Images
Nelson, H. and Stolterman, E. (2012). Universal to the ultimate particular, Graph. The Design Way: Intentional Change in Unpredictable World. 2nd ed. London: The MIT press.
Sanders, E. and Stappers, P. (2008). The front end of the design process has been growing as designers move closer to the future users of what they design. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4(1), pp.5-18.
Soo, J. (2010). Soo, J. (2010). The design offers a handle to the «Pull» side and a panel to the «Push» side offering a more intuitive answer. [image] Available at: https://newatlas.com/push-pull-door-concept/16721/ [Accessed 21 Dec. 2019].
