Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference of the Design Education Association, Cardiff March 14 2002.
Work of this kind is by its nature […]
Just before you get excited: there is no such thing as best practice in CID. ‘Best practice’ implies that only one kind of acceptable practice exists. But this is […]
We have gone through a big shift in our way of thinking about communication and information design.
I'm appalled by the various design gurus, academics and journalists who go on about design, innovation, and transformation; who talk endlessly about the value of design yet offer not a shred of evidence in support of their claims. They speak like investment bankers in a boom market.
If I were in business or the business press I would stop whinging about the inadequacy of the previous generation and look at what is happening now.
The big D may turn out to be just another business fashion and die like its predecessors. That would be a great shame, but it will happen unless its promoters take the time to collect the evidence that the design process leads to all the things we want: sustainable, humane, productive and profitable outcomes that transform our lives. Without this evidence, design with a big D is dead.
All of us involved in designing anything draw a boundary round the ‘problem’ space we choose to deal with, whether it’s a web site, a document, a motor car, a building, a city plan, or a whole society. We fix a boundary, and design within that self created space.
I think that style and what is called ‘eye candy’ are important in design. I also think that the champions of so-called practical and functional design, to the exclusion of eye candy or style, are either being disingenuous or they are simply wrong. Their advice is not to be followed.