Designteori 8.1Design: teori, metode & praksis, ITDD F2013

ALBERT BORGMANN:THE DEPTH OF

DESIGN

There is one heading, however, under which we discuss and judge the quality of our material culture, viz., design. Accordingly I propose we think of design as the excellence of material objects. Design in this objective sense is everyone’s concern.(Albert Borgmann, s. 13)

To stress the coordination between design in its objective sense as the excellence of the material culture and design in its practical sense as a profession is eminently urgent and desirable. Design, taken as an objective quality, needs design as a professional practice because the quality of the material culture urgently needs the care and advocacy of professionals.(Albert Borgmann, s. 14)

DESIGN AS THE EXCELLENCE OF MATERIAL OBJECTS

Når vi designer og taler om IT-Didaktisk design beskæftiger vi os altså med materiel le objekter i en materiel kultur.Det vi l s ige at vimå være refl ekterede omkring et designs material i tet, håndgribel ighed og ekspressivitet.

Et design bør altså indeholde l ige dele ‘ fornuft & følelse’Og hvis det at lære gennem design skal være engagerende må designet altså tage højde for disse forhold.

Vi kan altså ikke ‘arrangere, ’ ‘diktere’ el ler ‘skabe’ læring gennem designet (engineering design) og vi kan ikke lave et læringsdesign der ‘ fr ikøber’ læreren og lærer eleven automatisk og universelt

Hvad vi istedet må gøre er at invitere eleven gennem en æstetisk-materiel appel t i l ‘ fornuft & følelse’ , ‘sansning & håndgribel ighed,’ ‘ekspressivitet & indtryk’ (aesthetic design)

As engagement has decl ined, so has aesthetic design (Albert Borgmann, s. 15) As aesthetic design has decl ined, so has engagement

Hvordan forholder jeres design sig konkret t i l og tager hånd om disse aspekter?

DESIGN AS THE EXCELLENCE OF MATERIAL OBJECTS

Aesthetic design inevitably is confined to smoothing the interfaces and stylizing the surfaces of technological devices. Aesthetic design becomes shallow, not because it is aesthetic, but because it has become superficial. It has been divorced from the powerful shaping of the material culture. Engineering has taken over the latter task. But it in turn conceals the power of its shapes under discreet and pleasant surfaces(Albert Borgmann, s. 15)

DESIGN AS SURFACE DESIGN?

Indeholder jeres design æstetisk dybde eller er det blot en smuk overfalde?= er det digitale bare den søde overfl ade (eller forlystelsespark) der skal få brugeren til at sluge den bitre læring (eller gå i skole)?Hvis ikke – hvordan kan man så se det i designet?

Er jeres design bare en ‘automatisering’? En ‘afl astning’ der skal få brugeren til at blive ‘forbruger’ mere end ‘fokuseret deltager’?Hvis ikke – hvordan kan man så se det i designet?

Hvilke æstetiske krav stiller jeres design mht. brugerens engagement?Hvordan er det digitale mere og andet end overfl ade? Hvordan er det digitale ‘digitalt’? Dvs. Ikke bare ‘mere af det samme bare digitalt’?

DESIGN AS SURFACE DESIGN?

If we are concerned to revive engagement, we must try to recover the depth of design, that is, the kind of design that once more fuses engineering and aesthetics and provides a material setting that provokes and rewards engagement.(Albert Borgmann, s. 16)

More important, comprehension shades over into engagement, and it is depth of engagement that truly allows and calls for depth of design.(Albert Borgmann, s, 17)

THE DEPTH OF DESIGN

Hvis formålet med designet er at engagere brugerne til at lære, opleve eller interagere så må designet altså sammensmelte æstetisk ekspressivitet, sansning og fordybelse med udformningen af en designet invitation til læring, oplevelse eller interaktion.Hvordan provokerer & inviterer jeres design brugeren til at engagere sig? Og hvordan er denne provokation & invitation meningsfuld for brugeren i den kontekst hvori brugeren befinder sig?Hvordan belønner jeres design brugerens anstrengelser og engagement?Skaber jeres design et rum for et dybt vedvarende engagement hos brugeren? Hvordan? Eller gør jeres design noget helt andet?

THE DEPTH OF DESIGN

People who do house work extend themselves tangibly and subtly into the texture of their ownmost environment. They do so in furnishing, cleaning, repairing, adorning, and ordering their home. They lead a more extended and competent life than persons who are merely inserted into a prefabricated container.(Albert Borgmann, s. 18)

More particularly, I want to urge, designers are charged with making the material culture conducive to engagement.(Albert Borgmann, s. 18)

DESIGN AS CONDUCIVE TO ENGAGEMENT

Hvordan bidrager jeres design til brugerens engagement i konteksten?

Giver designet brugeren mulighed for at række ind I og påvirke konteksten? Eller omslutter det brugeren og afskærer ham/hende fra at have meningsfuld indflydelse på konteksten og konteksten fra at have meningsfuld indflydelse på brugeren?

Har I som designere formået at skabe et design der bidrager til brugerens engagement i konteksten?

DESIGN AS CONDUCIVE TO ENGAGEMENT

Things that invite engagement are distinguished not only by the wealth of their experiential properties but also by the disclosing power of those properties. A car does not really allow for engagement although it has a fair number of diff erent kinds of experiential qualities. But normally the tendency is to make a car as insensitive as possible to the wider world, to outside noise and temperature and to the surface, grade, and curves of the road. The kitchen utensils of the gourmet cook, to the contrary, disclose the texture, color, and taste of the food. The depth of the utensils opens on the depth of the world at large. They do not represent the world, as technological devices do; they allow the world to be present in its own right. Things, however, can have and hold this deeply disclosive power if they are so designed. (Albert Borgmann, s. 19-20)

DESIGNING ENGAGING ACTIVITIES

Skaber jeres design en udfoldet og åben invitation til engagement som brugeren kan (be)gribe og gøre til en engagerende aktivitet?

Hvordan har I taget jeres professionelle didaktiske ansvar alvorligt? Og hvordan har I taget jeres professionelle designer ansvar alvorligt? Hvordan kan man se det i designet?

Er jeres design ‘en bil’ eller ‘et køkkenredskab’? Hvilken metafor beskriver den invitation til engagement jeres design udgør? Hvordan har I udfoldet og implementeret denne invitation i jeres design? Og hvordan kommer invitationen til udtryk som design?

Design is deep and consequential. It is not confi ned to the cosmetics of a skyscraper’s skin(Albert Borgmann, s. 20)

DESIGNING ENGAGING ACTIVITIES