I am really excited because I will be teaching a new course this fall in Information Design. One of the things I plan to do is to work extensively on this Blog with and without the aid of my students.
The question that is always lurking in the back of mind is: What really is design? I think the key to good design is that good design is not accidental. Design then is a conscious effort at improving processes and products. As a conscious effort, design is limited by what we know. In that sense, design shares much in common with Strategic Communication. Taking implicit processes and making them explicit so that one can improve on them, and then making them implicit again. The more aware we are of the consequences of design, perhaps the more effective our designs will become. So the key questions from this perspective are really:
- How do we reduce human error through design?
- Human error includes:
- Attention (making people aware that something exists or is available)
- Memory (helping people to store processes in memory, overcoming the
limits of the brain as a limited capacity processor) - Sense-making (helping people understand)
- What affordances do different media provide us?
- Different media compensate and enhance human physical and mental limitations.
- How do we match media with messages?
- What are the truly important design factors?
- The old "form" vs. "function" debate. Why can't we have both?
- Culture, genetics, physical ability, mental ability, prior knowledge,
physical message design features, conceptual message design features?
Of course we have yet to specify the implicit processes, and I often wonder if there is transfer between contexts. In other words, if we learn the best way to design messages in one context, do those message design principles hold true in other contexts? While I hope the answer is yes, it seems that there is very little evidence to support either side. One of my own personal goals is to contribute to this evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment