IDblog: What's in a name? The sequel

What's in a name? The sequel

Tired of semantic arguments? Don't care what things are called? Quick! Bail out now...I recommend Dave Barry on synergy.

Still with me? Okay, but you've been warned :).

Not sure if you happened to notice it, but a week or so ago, peterme posted an entry to his weblog about that tricky word, design. In it he comments:

What's wrong with "design"? Well, there's nothing wrong with the practice, but plenty wrong with the word's associations. Right now, particularly in the field of web user experience, the word "design", without a modifier, means visual design. ... "Design" is what happens after the strategy has been settled, the specifications determined, the raison d'etre developed.

This is unfortunate. Design, with a capital D, ought to stretch beyond tactics, and into strategy. Design methods are brilliantly suited to figuring out WHAT to make, not just HOW to make it.

That said, he noted that "I see no need to be a champion for the cause of design." Peter isn't the first (nor probably the last) to comment on design's poor connotation. As I mentioned in the most recent what's in a name discussion here, Richard Saul Wurman intentionally chose the phrase information architecture rather than information design:

I selected the term information 'architect' rather than information 'designer' as the term 'designer' continues to be interpreted by the public as an individual who is hired to come in after the fact to make some project 'look beter' - as opposed to a professional part of the initial team creatively solving a problem.

I do not believe I can change this popular preconception.

Well, I'm too much of a middle-of-the-roader to be the champion of design, although I must admit to a personal preference to change perceptions rather than create new terminology. But that's not something individual people are well suited to do (though every time someone bails, it certainly makes it harder).

All of this makes this article/response on the domain of design from Dirk Knemeyer to be an interesting read. He writes:

Design is in crisis for a variety of reasons, including:

1. Success and recognition breed imitation and dilution. ...
2. Lack of clear boundaries encourages confusion. ...
3. Designers, in general, are not good marketers. ...
4. Non-designers do not respect - or perhaps understand - the domain of Design. ...

The sum total is that Design is largely commodified and seen as the discipline of making things look pretty.

However, unlike peterme or RSW, Dirk does see the value in championing design, in particular because he sees no real long-term value in terms like user experience, which he suggests are just as prone to being commodified. Given my preference for finding middle ground, I really resonated with this line:

What we need is focus and an acknowledgement that our consensus and collaboration will take us much further than being clever or doing our own thing.

This isn't just about Wurman coming up with a new term or Adaptive Path dropping 'design' from its marketing literature. IMO, the various niche groups (the IAs, the IDs, the usability folk, and so on) are to some extent all trying to create a market so that they can make a living doing interesting work that they tend to be good at.

Here's my question though. Wouldn't we all have an easier time of it if we worked together to create a paradigm shift in terms of how corporations work? Or what they value? If we did that, maybe the resulting shift would create more work than we all could actually do!

I see at least a tiny parallel to this idea when I read that Don Norman thinks that usability advocates don't understand business:

Until they understand it and how products get made, we will have little progress. In the field of design, people come from three very different backgrounds. They come from art and architecture schools and they know how to make attractive things. Or they trained in computer science and psychology and they know how to make usable things but they don't know how to build anything, they're just good at finding flaws. Or they come from ethnography, and they are superb at understanding what people really need, but don't know how to translate that into products. So all this has to come together, otherwise no decent products will result.

For me, I'd include the others who are also playing in a similar UX/user-centered design space. But there's another issue, which I think Dirk points out as well. Just because it is new media doesn't mean we need to reinvent the wheel. Okay, maybe there are some issues with the stereotype of the snooty, award-seeking graphic designer that is hurting us currently in our efforts to seek respect (and work) in the field of online design. But IMO, getting rid of 'design' is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There is a rich tradition in the study of design. Just because the web is new or young doesn't mean that no one has ever solved the problems we're now facing. I see considerable value in aligning ourselves with that tradition.

And maybe it is a grass is greener thing, but from my perspective, the fields of product design (or industrial design) do not seem to be having problems with the term, or the process, of design. (Okay, I grant you that maybe some, the computer manufacturers in particular, still need some work on getting the process down :). There are also a number of design-oriented groups, like the Design Management Institute (US), Corporate Design Foundation (US) and the Design Council (UK) that are among many who are looking at the issue of a better integration with business and design, some of which have government support (see the resource list from DMI for more).

So, I am in favor of seeking opportunities for collaboration and consensus that adds to an existing tradition -- design. I suppose that it is possible that I'm somehow caught up in . But I guess that's why I participate in all these discussions (and why I have comments turned on on my weblog :)

06:22 PM | linkme | home

Comments

2 comments really.

Number one: it seems like a lot of people are treating words like design as if they have concrete meaning. "Design" is an abstract noun - it can mean whatever use of the term allows it to mean. If enough people "mean" design to be overarching and to include IA, ID, UX etc, then it will mean that. Has no-one read de Saussure? - the sign and its signified meaning are separate, this is how words work! Semantics, Schmemantics...?

Number two: I agree with collaboration, but (despite my "Number one" comment above) words are still important. To gain a level of agreement, everyone needs to be speaking the same language - see Lou Rosenfeld's blog entry on UX bumpage and associated comments. My own feeling is that everyone in the various fields is working to "make stuff useful" - do we really need to get any more specific than that - it covers ia, id, ux, km, aesthetics, usability, graphic design, ethnography, typography, psychology and all the other bits and bobs associated with the e-world.

Sorry for all the acronyms!

-- Posted by Mark Thristan on June 25, 2003 08:09 AM

Hmm, my link tags were removed in that last comment. Lou Rosenfeld's blog entry is at: http://louisrosenfeld.com/home/bloug_archive/000171.html

-- Posted by Mark Thristan on June 25, 2003 08:13 AM

What continues to surprise me is that many folks believe that "design" should mean one particular thing. It does not, and (big surprise here), words can have many meanings.

Design can mean "invent", as in the conceptual notion, or "devise", as in the tactical notion. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=design So it means both; I can live with that.

“Commoditization” of words? You bet. Language is constantly evolving and changing because of use. Get thousands of people suddenly saying "bling-bling", and, wham-o, it's a word and in the dictionary. http://www.salon.com/books/wire/2003/06/07/dictionary/ Once upon a time it was cool and unique, and now it's "imitated and diluted", or just accepted?

Can you get everyone to think of "design" in one way? Not a chance, and it is even foolish to think it's possible. I think this is what Wurman meant about changing popular preconception. The linguistic battle over “design” has been fought; the definitions (all 27 of them) have been formed. Besides, I think Wurman made the right choice in using “architect”. Design has so many meanings it is ambiguous; better to be clear and understandable than vague.

I think I am going to try to get everyone in the world to think of Information Architect when they hear the word "Architect". Well, except for in Ohio. :-)

-- Posted by on June 25, 2003 10:22 PM

Right on, Beth. I'm thinking more and more about encouraging collaboration. We have plans for a follow-up event with the local groups involved in DUX, called BayDUX.
See also my thoughts at: http://radio.weblogs.com/0107659/2003/06/25.html#a456

-- Posted by Fred Sampson on June 25, 2003 11:16 PM

Right on, Fred! I like the way you think :).

Now Matt is another story. No seriously, I guess I'm not so sure that it is impossible to change popular preconception. When necessary, organizations with some clout and some money are able to do so (think folks perception re smoking). I've argued that none of IA/information design/usability will work as "umbrella" terms in part because it is nearly impossible to view these as separate from their specific tactical activities. But I'm less convinced that this is true of "design" on its own. I grant you that it is impossible for individuals to do so, even for those with the PR skills of Wurman. But I'm not yet convinced that it is impossible with the kind of consensus and collaboration between large organizations that Dirk alluded to. We need that kind of clout to make a real difference...in corporate boardrooms, where the make the decisions about who get the C-titles. To the extent that we've got a few trying to do that in the IA community and a few trying to do that in the UX community and a few trying to do that in the info design community, I suspect we'll either be stepping on toes or confusing people who may be inclined to throw up their hands and just keep doing the same old, same old. I'm happy to be proved wrong though!

-- Posted by Beth on June 26, 2003 07:22 PM

i'm not sure this is exactly in line with the thread, but maybe someone could help straighten me out a bit...

although i have read several articles and essays on the current pejorative connotations of the word "design" and about the desparate state and reputation of design at present, i still am amazed that people percieve design this way, and i just can't quite wrap my brain around it! ("what? what?")

to me personally, "design" (as a noun or verb!) implies intentionality and a sense of agency on someone's or several someones's part or parts! i aspire daily to being a "designer" and doing "design," and i am proud when i feel that i realize this goal (it happens occationally!)...

to me personally, "prettying up" is not designing...i definitely feel that designs should be elegant, inspiring, and beautiful, but i feel these qualities arise through the design process and don't represent ends in themselves...it's funny, all the popular books about design i own stress that design is *not* applying a fascade to something to make it more commercially attractive, but rather is a problem-solving process to help clients meet their needs (the writers's perspective!) and for all the stakeholders (client, designer, audience/customers) to (hopefully!) be enriched in the process (my perspective!)...

maybe i'm just too naive? can anyone help me understand all this?

thanks!
carroll :)

-- Posted by on June 27, 2003 12:50 PM

Thanks, Beth, for a very passionate and thoughtful post! I certainly second your sentiments.

Commenting on some of the responses, I like Mark Thristan's concept of "make stuff useful" but think we are talking about two different things. As an easy way to communicate *externally*, yes, that level of "simple enough for a five year old to understand" is exactly what we need. From a marketing perspective.

However, internally, we need classification and domain definition and all of that other fun stuff. In a formal way. That is more along the lines of what I was talking about: lets define our domains, then figure out the best way to communicate those externally, then come together to hit the world with an amazing promotional campaign that is consistent and clear. I *do* think that *Design* is what ulitmately ties us together, and a good way to communicate Design, indeed, could be "we make stuff useful." But they work together, not as an either/or.

carroll, I think that your interpretation/understanding of Design is pretty consistent with what many of us are saying. The "problem" is really one of domain, and of ability. With regard to domain, many peopole who call themselves "designers" are really "stylists" or some other method of aesthetician. And when they go about calling themselves "designers" and people see what they are doing is superfluous, they see "designers" in a negative light. The close popular connection between "art" and "design" exacerbates this. Then, within our communities, the professionals who are often times focused on content and functionality - such as software engineers or information architects - resent and look down upon "designers" because, once again, they seem over-focused on trivialities and not contributing to what really matters. Sometimes that perception is accurate, other times not.

Then is the issue of ability. A *lot* of people "lay out" newsletters, brochures, posters, etc. on their computers. And they call themselves "designers." But they have not been formally trained, or they are not naturally talented, or both, and the work they do is miserable, and they proudly tell people that they are "designers" and all of our reputations flush slowly down the proverbial toilet.

Think of it this way: very, very few people would call themself an "engineer" without lots of schooling and formal experience and indoctrination. There is a level of respect and recognition inherent in the word. Design has not cultivated and protected its brand the same way. So, yes, we know Design is about problem solving as opposed to aesthetics, etc., yet the world at large sees it as that person down the hall, who really wants to be thought of as "creative" and have people like them, doing terrible work as they "lay out" different tactics under the auspices of "Design."

Ergo, while some of us (internally) agree on the domain, the external world has a perception that is far, far different. The idea of "Design" as problem solving to Joe Q. Citizen is laughable, to say the least. Complicating that, many people involved in Design, or even more precisely in Information Design disciplines feel exactly the same way.

Not sure if I helped you understand...and did not mean to start ranting. :-)

Best,
Dirk

-- Posted by Dirk on June 28, 2003 01:14 PM

Dirk,

thanks for the reply! i read some of the links in Beth's original post (including yours!), and i feel i better understand what you folks are getting at, but i guess i still don't understand the reality of it all...

maybe it's because the "normal, everyday people" i know don't have a clue about what design is or what designers are or do! the occasional person will have heard of "fashion design," or maybe "graphic design," but really never even interior design, much less industrial design or informational design and such! so the people i know don't have too many misconceptions about design (i think they mostly think of what you're talking about as produced by ad people)

also, maybe it's because i am somewhat insulated...i work "in-house" at a pharmaceutical company helping people develop documents that apply to their needs, not with people who have some notion about design! my clients are all scientists or engineers, and typically i have to educate each new client to understand how i can help other than just doing the work nobody else wants to do (cranking out some "box-checking" document!) i previously spent several years in one area, and had finally gotten through to them that involving me early was a good idea because i could apply some real conscious process to their project, rather than just "well, we need to put this together" and starting typing away!

however, i can kind of relate to what you are saying...i moved to a new area a couple of months ago, and they (so far at least) see no value in making document development and production a project...they don't see me as someone "to make stuff pretty," but they really do just see me as someone to "fix" their existing documents and format, not to develop a new process.

in the past, i always worked in a collaborative way, involving as many stakeholders as possible, and my new boss is totally against that (he is a PhD scientist by the way...why is it that they tend to think that because they are experts in a narrow area of science they are experts at everything?). he prefers to do something and then beat down the opposition rather than dealing with disparate needs and issues during the process (he says it takes too long to address everyone's concerns)...so i can relate to being discounted as just someone to come along later and do the dirty work rather than a contributer who should be included in the project from the start!

hope this wasn't too long!

smiles,
carroll :)

-- Posted by on June 29, 2003 09:56 PM