Chaos Design – public beta – opinions wanted [my book on design theory] - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: frozenfrogz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2017, 08:45:29 pm
content: Dear all,after spending quite some time on this forum, I can say that I feel welcome and "at home" here. That is thanks to all of you sharing your expertise and contributing to what I can just describe as a very nice place I like visiting.Since you are all coming from diverse professional and personal backgrounds, I would like your opinion on something a colleague and me have been working on last year.Currently I am studying for a master’s degree in »Communicationdesign and Productdesign« at Academy of Applied Science Aachen, Faculty of Design.I finished the translation to english some weeks ago, minding you that I am not a native speaker and it is pending the proper lectorate atm.You would make me a very happy person if you find the time to read into the book and give some feedback.Positive, or negative: It is all very appreciated.BlurbWritten in a popular scientific domain, we are looking at the prevalent state of design theory and where these fall short in our understanding of design. A lot of different sciences surrounding the field of design and creativity in general are taken into consideration to find better ways in understanding creative processes.You can download the PDF versions here (~28Mb):Chaos Design [public beta] englishChaos Design [public beta] deutschThanks a lot!Frederik

author: frozenfrogz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2017, 09:48:53 am
content: Errata:Thanks to @nugglix for pointing out that the files I supplied in the links were unreadable.I managed to screw up on the previous file export, because I exported single pages instead of print sheets.This should be fixed now.If you have trouble opening the file (I hope not, but who knows about PDF compatibility issues?), please drop me a line!

author: PChi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2017, 11:40:23 am
content: I speed read the document. Engineering is about results, not how to get there so I'm not surprised that there aren't any replies.My view is that design isn't chaos but it isn't entirely predictable either. There are so many variables that interact that it's impossible to investigate many options. Typically there is only time to follow one route with many decisions having to be taken with incomplete information to have any hope of creating a product in a realistic time scale.If the design were repeated the outcome would be different.

author: capt bullshot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2017, 11:57:40 am
content: Sorry, but you asked: Although this is written in a language that I'm able to read and understand (I tried the German version) - I can't read it. The page design confuses me, the contents is like your "blurb" section - a concatenation of words without meaning (at least to me). If it's intended to be chaos, the goal is fulfilled :-)

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2017, 12:13:23 pm
content: I'm not sure I understand the relation between the text and the image at page 68.Also read a few other random pages, but I don't understand what is all about. Still, it doesn't feel like computer generated text. I don't know.

author: frozenfrogz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2017, 12:34:46 pm
content: Thanks for your devastating reviews so far! It is highly appreciatedRegarding the picture on p68: That is actually one of the images drawn by the Google Deep Dream convolutional neural network, posted through Reddit, where most parts of the original image are recognized as lobsters.I see, that in order to reach a wider range of people (not directly connected to design) we need to heavily rewrite.

author: PChi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2017, 03:01:32 pm
content: In my opinion your document is mixing design with what I call styling.People like Bruno Sacco and Raymond Loewy are / were probably mostly concerned with how a product looked so I would label them as stylists.The stylists work in conjunction with the designers who create the reality under the skin.Again in my opinion all chairs should be designed to be comfortable to sit in first and foremost. The Chair One seems to be styled just for looking at so is a bad design example.Again in my opinion much architecture has been created for the ego of the 'stylist' and for the financial benefit of the developer with the user a secondary consideration.

author: frozenfrogz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2017, 03:29:11 pm
content: Quote from: PChi on April 18, 2017, 03:01:32 pmThat is a discussion that has been going on for ages. Personally, I hate the term "design" since it is incredibly blurry and glittering characters like Loewy, Stark,... add to a very restricting "popular" view of the profession. However, I can not totally exclude the styling part from the overall design process either.For me personally, the designers job is to have a holistic view at the task at hand: Talking with every party involved in creating a new product and coming up with suitable solutions that fit the specific needs. This might include some fancy stuff, but it also asks for having at least some knowledge and understanding of all the different departments.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2017, 05:50:35 pm
content: I started reading your document, had a couple of comments, which follow, and then carried on before posting the following.First, and trivially, in American English artifact is spelled with an i. You may need to check your target audiences for spelling idiosyncracies.Second, you state that the artifact contains its purpose. This is only true if the purpose is still alive in the culture of the observer. This shows up in archaeology where many artifacts are of unknown purpose and are either identified that way, or assigned purposes which seem likely by the discoverer - religious object or whatever. A more recent example is the button hook. An object with sophisticated function and in wide use 120 years ago, and utterly unknown and unrecognizable to the majority of people today.As I followed on, I found I could not be fascinated by the topic. As others have stated it is much more attuned to design as an art form than to design as a process to create useful items. A topic which I cannot become deeply interested or involved in. And one on which I cannot meaningfully comment. So I scanned the rest, not reading deeply. Leaving only two more comments.I will say that the design of your chapter headings carries out the ideas of the chapter. A clever approach. But unclear whether the value exceeds the difficulty for the reader in decoding the title.Chaos theory denies the possibility of detail predictions in some kinds of systems under some sets of conditions. I have no doubt that chaos applies to design under some sets of circumstances. But recognize that in the physical sciences the best that has been possible relative to chaotic systems is to identify some bounding conditions on behavior and in some cases probability densities for some states. In your demand for a chaos theory of design recognize that any such theory is likely to have similar limitations.

author: frozenfrogz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2017, 08:51:17 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on April 18, 2017, 05:50:35 pmYes, BE is what I opted for when translating.QuoteMy criticism towards prevailing design theories is, that the theorists can only take an archaeologists stand point, but they sell their view and finding as definite – they do not phrase: "might have been", but instead: "was". All explanations given by design theories are based on linear argumentation and post-rationalization. Thus the main approach of our book is introducing the "idea" of chaos-theory and showing that design processes are to complex to be described by linear dependencies.QuoteFrom your remarks, I take it that the fundamentals of chaotic systems and the implication of a "too complex to grab" are well contemplated within other disciplines. But since designers want to be taken serious for their work, a paradigm shift within the field of design has to happen. Otherwise we will always be stuck at being seen as the ones that do the styling and come up with marketing crap.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2017, 09:14:51 am
content: I looked at the english translation briefly. What immediately popped out, dividing words. There are some, which are divided between pages. In english, since words are not as long as German, this should be avoided. It makes reading really cumbersome. There is really no point dividing de-sign or par-ticular, so that you end up with blank space at the end of the paragraph.http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000129.htm

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2017, 09:32:01 pm
content: Quote from: frozenfrogz on April 19, 2017, 08:51:17 amSome kinds of chaotic systems are understood, and some characterization of their behavior can be made. As far as I know there is no general theory of chaotic systems. Most engineering disciplines try to minimize the chance of chaotic behavior. As far as I know, no one has incorporated a chaotic pendulum into a design of anything other than a chaotic behavior demonstrator.Maybe steps short of a chaotic theory of design would be adequate. A non-linear theory of design. Or a noisy theory of design. Or for a orthogonal approach to your problem, look up the TRIZ methodology and see how a similar concept might be applied to design. I suspect designers might welcome this approach more than engineers and scientists have.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2017, 10:08:56 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 19, 2017, 09:14:51 amYou did not get the pun. The book layout design is in line with the book title.

author: frozenfrogz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2017, 11:20:10 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on April 19, 2017, 09:32:01 pmThank you for pointing me towards the TRIZ theory. The Wikipedia article I read as an appetizer has definitely got me interested and I will read up on the subject. So much to learn, so little timeYou are correct in pointing out, that a chaotic theory of design is a little to far–fetched to start with. We only just depicted, that processes in the field of design can not be assumed as being simply linearly dependent, but have to be of non-linear nature – maybe even up to a degree of complexity that can no longer be described, or predicted adequately and thus could be called chaotic. But that is still left to prove.However, asking for a theory that at least leaves room for the idea of chaotic, or non-linear connections in design processes makes us heretics in the eyes of a lot of designers and marketing folks.