Month: May 2018

Law and Order in the Studio, Part II

If a design presentation and critique is compared to a courtroom setting, then what roles do the design, designer, and design judges play?

Perhaps the design critique is a reverse trial. The design is ‘on trial’, but as something to be accepted rather than judged. The designer is the prosecutor, with the burden of evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the design has merit, or even that it is the best possible answer to th design brief. The critic (boss, client, teacher) plays to roles of defense council, judge, and jury. While the designer tries to make their case, they look for holes, weaknesses, and alternative explanations. When the case of the prosecutor (the designer) stands up, the design is judged as ‘good’, or ‘acceptable’.

It might be fun to separate these three functions in an educational setting. The teacher can be judge (only making sure everybody follows the rules and plays fair), an external critic can be the defense lawyer (doing their best to point out weaknesses and poke holes in the designer’s work), and other students can be the jury (rendering their verdict after hearing all the evidence).

What About the Logic of Design Proposals?

Next to a description of an artefact, plans for its production, and plans for its use, the product of a design project must always be a design proposal. There is the rare case where a design “speaks for itself”, but even in that instance, what that design says amounts to an argument that proposes the design’s actualization. And in arguing for a boss, client, or teacher, to make it like this, automatically means to not make it like that, or to leave the world as it is and keep making the same thing as before, or to make nothing new at all.

In practice, the goal and measure of success of such a proposal is that it persuades. In academic circles, we should instead be interested in whether the argument is any good in terms of its logic and evidentiary weight. Also in practice, however, those on the receiving end of a design proposal will want to judge how successfully the arguments offered actually justify a belief in the value of the design under consideration, and to poke through any rhetorical flourishes and salestalk that may be involved. In fact, I would argue that engineers –as opposed to those with sales and business titles– are under a moral obligation to strive for the same: an honest presentation of the merits of a design, accurate rather than merely giving the impression of accuracy. If “trust me, I’m an engineer” is to remain a valid request, we should strive to be trustworthy.

What is the logic of design proposals? What, exactly, are the claims that are made when designers present the results of their efforts? And how are and can these be justified?

Is the result of design always a proposal? Do designs published in academic journals fit this description?

At first glance, they don’t. Their message is more “Here is what we made. It’s really good/interesting/valuable/impressive.” But isn’t this the same as saying “This is how we should make these kinds of things for these kinds of situations.”? Or, “This is how we should solve this problem, or reach this goal.”?

A Valid Form of Justification by Process

The history of a design proposal is, in fact, sometimes a relevant argument for or against it. It can say something about the uncertainties (“unknown unknowns”) around the concept.

When an idea or design concept has been put through criticism, when it has been poked, prodded, changed back and forth, there has been a process of discovery. Were there any unexpected behaviours, properties, interactions, etcetera?

When we are presented with two proposals that seem comparable in terms of predicted performance, but one has only been drawn up yesterday and the other has been the subject of development for significantly longer, even when the final level of detail is similar, the ‘younger’ idea can be legitimately opposed simply on the basis that there might very well be something wrong with it while the other one can be accepted with less risk.