Talk:Design methods

message: I don't get the article at all. It is poorly written from a not-neutral POV by someone who has obviously some personal interest in the topic (but doesn't disclose exactly what). Design methods cover a very broad field and many different processes yet the article is particularly narrow. This reads like it should have been a blog post or article elsewhere, with someone more neutral writing a summary here. 87.142.123.38 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly written article 

message: I'm lingering on the justification of Paul Rand. When it comes to the history of design methods, Paul Rand doesn't immediately come to mind. I appreciate his inclusion for the fact he was a graphic design pioneer. Awareness of design by corporations owes much to his efforts. Having been taught by him and observing him for that wonderful week of his last appearance at the Yale Brissago program, my view of him as an exclusively monolithic practitioner was reinforced. But I'm open to be corrected. (Design Methods Advocate 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments to The Role of Design Practitioners 

message: This section serves as good transition for the basis of methods-practicing design groups, who are reaching out to disciplines of business. Speaking about this connection, however thick or volatile, between design and business, Bruce Nussbaum, who covers design and innovation for BusinessWeek, made a recent blog entry called Innovation vs. Design—The British Design Council weighs in. Core of this entry is design's reach beyond the frame of (art)ifacts, as affected by design methods. (Design Methods Advocate 18:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments to Design Management 

message: This is a good start as an extension of The Role of Design Practitioners. Ideo and Gravity Tank are two examples of product design based firms using many of the same ideas and even language. This should be expanded over time to discuss the intersection of process and method, since much of what they discuss is process (when). We also probably need to discuss the new grouping of skill sets. Brainstorming is over 40 years old as an idea, the question is how is it different now? (Design Methods 01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments to The Role of Design Groups 

message: Thanks for this addition. I added to paragraph on Clement Mok. I thought it was appropriate to add in his book Designing Business: Multiple Media, Multiple Disciplines. The title alone echoes the muliplicity nature of Design methods and their adopters. In particular, Mok's manifesto-esque tome contributes to the argument of advancing design's collaboration and sensitivity to context. Also, should this section be renamed "Impact of Information Technology"? Digital Technologies is too specific to me. (Design Methods Advocate 22:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments to Expansion of Digital Technologies 

message: Don't know if this belongs under Articulations or should be a level up in the hierarchy. Also fixed those Back to Tops. (Design Methods Advocate 22:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Sub-Section on Design Education 

message: What is the source for Victor Margolin's challenges to making Design methods a unified vehicle of knowledge? Also, designers are, relatively speaking, problem solvers, but broadly speaking and probably more empathic, designers, whatever the discipline, attempt to transform situations for the better. Problems can be perceived as points in isolation in contrast to situations that are more encompassing. Design methods can be described as a collective way to solve to a certain extent situations where users intersect with a product or service and Nature. (Design Methods Advocate 22:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments to Current State of Design Methods 

message: What was the point of taking things backwards to something like this?
:Tomas Maldonado, an Argentinian architect and director of the post-war design school, Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm,  strove to link design to improvement of the social dimension. He realized that design, as an applied art, was a synthetic discipline that borrrowed heavily from other disciplines. There was a gap between the craft language of design and the post-war complexity that demanded more of design to transform the expression/production model to one of methods, systems and processes. 
:Maldonado realized that design, as an applied art, was a synthetic discipline that borrrowed heavily from other disciplines.
 
That puts back a duplication. The whole article, at 50K, is too long, and too like someone's manifesto. I am quite prepared to work piecemeal at improving it. But regressive edits are not a good idea. 
Charles Matthews 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion in first section

message: Ongoing edits to this page are causing problems. I will mention
*non-use of edit summaries - it is not acceptable to make 50, 60 or more edits without a single edit summary in explanation. This effectively excludes others from comprehension of what is being done to the article
*non-use of minor edit check-box
*retrograde steps - it is not acceptable to replace internal links, for example to A Pattern Language, by external links
*overlinking - John Christopher Jones does not need a link on every occasion; I put in intensive work in reducing the linkage of this page into conformity with standard policy and practice
*textbook-style provocative headings are not in place in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia centrally concerned with documentation, and not supposing that the reader requires didacticism
*large cuts of material without any consultation or indication.
It should be well noted that no concept of 'ownership' is recognised on Wikipedia. Page editing is a collective activity.
Charles Matthews 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing edits

message: Thanks for adding John Christopher Jones's diagram from his 1970 book Design Methods. It's a fascinating multidisciplinary matrix with concepts that resonate more so today such as "design situation," "functional innovation," "value analysis," even "boundary searching" which speaks to framing problems as robustly as possible. These concepts describe design as systemic. What's the legend for the gray zones? And it would be an interesting exercise to compare this lens from more than thirty years ago to today's take on Design Methods, both inputs and outputs. Will the results be a reflection or refraction? (Design Methods Advocate 03:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments to Formalization of Design Methods

message: Thank you for the helpful feedback and comments. Also Ronz, thank you for improving the references section as it is better than before. Below are a few comments and suggestions:
:*Wikipedia policy doesn't currently permit editors to write from their own experience. -- Much of the content in the sections are mainstream content (especially the design history component) and is an expedited overview to understand the transition of design from a craft-based trade of materiality to one of becoming involved with mass production and the rise of methods and processes.  In many Wiki articles, there is an overview section or a narrative that has no source, but uses links within Wikipedia and we followed this style. I can backtrack it to a source or a series of sources for reference purposes, but there is no "primer" source for aggregated content.
:*If material in the article has previously been released under copyright by John Chris Jones, confirmation of his permission to re-release the text under our GFDL license must be lodged with the Wikimedia Foundation. -- I will have John Chris Jones send an e-mail as confirmation to the e-mail address you have provided. This will be done quickly and do not feel that deleting either references or visual assets is necessary since he provided permission.
:I've added the Investigating Design pdf that Shell spotted as a ref, as well as Jones' Design Methods.  The other two books aren't being used as references as far as I can tell.  Also did some reorganization. -- Thank you Ronz for doing this!
I look forward to additional feedback as we improve the article (Design Methods 05:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your continued help, it is appreciated. (Design Methods 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  I've been a bit busy.  I should have time soon to get the Margolin and Doblin refs listed the way I did Bayazit's.  Next would be finding the specific references from the London Design Council and DMI websites. --Ronz 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the links to Doblin, DMI, London Design Council and Victor Margolin (Design Methods 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job!  I'm still busier than I expected, but we're making good progress regardless. --Ronz 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I will await further suggestions (Design Methods 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Mediation (Part Two) 

message: There are number of persons and probably important topics listed in this article that have wiki articles themselves.  The first instance should be linked to its article.  Especially important ones might be listed in "See also" as well. --Ronz 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that I've been unable to verify that "Design Methods" is different from design methods.  Please provide a reference.  --Ronz 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When we refer to the book, it will remain initialized, when we discuss it in general it will be lower case. (Design Methods 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify

message: Would these references count as books and articles on design methods? Design strategies and methods in interaction design.  There are some familiar names and books in the list.  What do you think of http://www.methodagent.com/? --Ronz 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great find and we really appreciate you finding it!. We have contacted the developer and they are in clear alignment to what we are doing. We would also like to have a link on the wikipedia article. (Design Methods 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for finding references. Out of the two, MethodAgent is an excellent find and therefore very appropriate. It is in alignment with Design Methods article. --Design Methods Advocate 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting titles but I cannot judge these by titles alone. Can you please provide line(s) on why these books are relevant to Design Methods? Thanks. --Design Methods Advocate 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they were recommended sources for the article by Nigel Cross. --Ronz 20:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see Nigel Cross's recommendation in Discussion. --Design Methods Advocate 15:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You asked why there were relevant.  I told you there were recommendations by Nigel Cross.  --Ronz 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Book suggestions are very helpful. It would be further helpful to understand how suggested book titles directly link back to design methods. Nigel Cross' book was added to the books section of the article since his role in the development of design methods has a long track record. We also need to keep in mind that design methods is nort just limited to software enineering, and is inclusive of all areas of inquiry and discipline based on the definition at the top of the article. That definition should guide our efforts. (Design Methods 16:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point.  I'm no longer following or trusting your perspectives on design methods, after your repeated assertions about Jones' book and the workshop I attended.  Your unverified opinions are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  Instead, I'm doing the research myself and relying upon known experts.  I turned to Nigel Cross and can provide documentation to show that if necessary.  I think the time has come to stop treating this article as if you WP:OWN it and all edits must be approved by you.  The books don't need Cross' recommendation to be relevant - their content should be enough.  Krippendorf's is a great source from what I've seen of it so far.  Nemeth's doesn't have the same extent, but I'm still very impressed with it as well.  I haven't seen Ulrich & Eppinger yet. --Ronz 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not believe we are missing the point and am sorry to hear your current perspective. I believe all contributors have honorable intentions and want a good overview of this topic. I do not believe that the article is unverified, and the documentation and vetting has shown it. I visited Nigel's talk page and the books he suggested focusing on product design and development are helpful. He does readily admit that they are product-centric and that there are other books he may not be aware of. I hope that Nigel Cross will eventually articulate specific ways to improve the design methods article as that is what Wiki is all about.  As for the books he recommended, it would be helpful to identify specific content from these books that you find relevant and they can be integrated into the article content. (Design Methods 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Design Methods

message: Opening before Contents was revised and made more cohesive for better clarity. --Design Methods Advocate 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised Opening

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Design methods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051103135028/http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm?contentalias=JayDoblin to http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm?contentalias=JayDoblin
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There has been much discussion about this article, mostly not very fruitful, but it seems to have gone dead for some years now. I have made substantial edits recently. They are all intended to improve the article to make it more neutral, well-referenced, and encyclopaedic - i.e. removing the rather journalistic style and content. I hope that these are accepted in the spirit intended, and will lead towards removal of the Page Issues at the head of the article. Some more edits still to come. Nigel Cross (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose to delete the section 'Current state of design methods': it is no longer current (if it ever was), it rambles over topics and is not informative. Some relevant points on 'current state' are now included in the Background and Influence sections. Nigel Cross (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial new edits