Chapter 1 from Kim Goodwin’s Designing for the Digital Age is extremely resourceful and insightful. He starts off by introducing his own definition of Design – it is a craft of visualizing concrete solutions that serve human needs and goals within certain constraints. He goes on to iterate his stance on how Design should be differentiated from Art, as they serve different purposes. He describes Art as a form of expression of the artists’ inner vision, whereas design is more about a realization and the manifestation of the tangible. From this reading, the biggest takeaway/impression that was left on me was the implication that great designers are thinkers. Thinkers that go beyond the simplicity of creating a product and exploring the outcome. In doing so, these successful designers are able to incorporate foresight into their composition and work backwards in finding the optimal solution for their clients.
Design is a craft because it is neither science nor art, but somewhere in between.
Design uses science that disguises itself as art to entice and produce outcomes that serve human needs and goals. I agree with his point on this – we cannot escape the fact that science is all around us and we inevitably borrow concepts from it to create projects. Sometimes, people may confuse the outcome of aesthetic satisfaction and pleasure as a art. Artists are bound by their ideation and their goal to achieve a certain impression on its viewers – be it abstract art or not.
Design always happens within certain constraints.
This is very apt as design always has an intended outcome – Goodwin states that pleasure and aesthetic satisfaction are also important human goals, the fact that design is tailor in a certain way restricts designers from exploring too wide and applying too many concepts into an approach. This will lead to the project going haywire, particularly due to it not being focused and engaging in too much experimentation – going beyond the budget of the project. Such is the matter of fact – we have limited resources in building designs, often we have to differentiate ourselves from architects and remove ourselves from the idea of building products. Instead, we build opportunities for our clients to close the gap in creating solutions.
I interpreted goal-directed design as working backwards, always keeping the end-goal in mind and moulding the design to fit the goals. As modern day designers, we tend to receive feedback only towards the end of our creative journey of a project. For Cooper, however, it was about the consistency of having a third-party perspective. To integrate this, they had created convincing personas that would lead them in the right direction and keep the designers in check. As designers, we tend to delve too deep into our works, lose our sense of direction and follow the lead of our intuition. By bringing in personas, they act as consumers/customers who are able to give unbiased opinions that are constructive. This elevates the design and helps it remain inclusive and versatile. Aligning our thought processes and rationale with the clients, it was create the opportunity for a successful product.
As I would like to think, no two designs are the same. The end-product may appear similar, but the thought process, the methods in reaching the end-goals would be vastly different. Especially from the concept point-of-view, it is impossible to recreate two same projects through two separate entities. Though this reading takes on a more corporate view, the fundamental principles of design remains and a framework is drafted as an open source sharing, equipping us with indispensable knowledge in our future as designers.