breakdown & ontological design
As I read more about ontological design (e.g. Winograd & Flores, Fry, Willis, etc..) I’m curious how these complex ideas can be made accessible on a wider spectrum–both in terms of spreading these ideas to a wider population as well as contributing exemplars/design knowledge to ongoing theorization. For example, the notion of ontological design asks one to deeply consider the way in which they act on/in the world, the relational complexity within which this occurs and, among other things, the ongoing, systemic & perpetual effects of design (i.e. the recognition that the agency of designed things themselves shape us in complex ways as much as the designs that we introduce shape the world around us).
Among others, Anne-Marie Willis notes that few designers take the notion of ontological design into account. It’s possible that even if many designers grasp the complex notion of ontologically designing, it’s difficult to develop a meaningful–or practically accessible–starting point. I’m interested in how the concepts motivating ontological design could be better integrated and realized in everyday life. For example, Willis (drawing from Heidegger) mentions the notion of breakdown, referring to a circumstance in which “something” (e.g. a tool, system, etc..) ceases to work and the involved person–or party–has to examine the cause, how it works, and develop a creative solution. Generally, breakdowns are productive instances characterized by critical reflection & interpretation where she or he comes to a deeper understanding of the given phenomenon that broke down.
While there is a growing tradition at the intersection of critical theory & interaction design1 (i.e. developing a device/system that questions–and thus bring to the forefront–latent cultural or political assumptions in design), I’m curious what this would look like when directly applied to ontological design and a very particular context (e.g. an urban setting attempting to move toward more sustainable practices or the everyday culture (and impact) of the domestic domain, etc..).
Essentially, manufacturing a breakdown embodied as a design intervention to intentionally open an interpretive space as a means to reveal key notions associated with ontological design (e.g. design designs you), while remaining tied to familiar everyday settings. And, along this line, which contexts should we focus these interventions on first?
1. One of the better known examples of critical theory & interaction design are the projects carried out by Phoebe Sengers (in the Culturally Embedded Computing group). Also, as of late, my esteemed colleague Jeffery Bardzell has been making headway in the somewhat similarly related notion of Interaction Criticism.
ACM Interactions Article
The article I wrote on Personal Inventories with my illustrious colleagues Eli Blevis and Erik Stolterman was recently published in the Sept/Oct issue of Interactions magazine. This work represents an early articulation of a body of work deeply tying to theory and practice; ultimately aimed at producing a designerly method to inform the design more culturally durable interactive artifacts.
practice, methods & redirective strategies
Broadly construed, redirective practice aims to subvert the unfolding condition of unsustainability by (i) identifying that which needs to be sustained (and that which needs to be designed out of existence) and (ii) impacting particular structures and situations through redirective design interventions. In this context, the design process, outcome, and subsequent effects are mutually constituted as an indivisible whole. Nonetheless, the transformation from ontologically designed unsustainability to ontologically designing sustainment is unequivocally complex.
As a interaction designer and design researcher, I’m left contemplating my own practice–and, to me, a key problem lies in the disparity between how we talk about design and the complexity of the designed world we inhabit.1 Typically (in IxD) the notion of what design is all about is discussed on a micro-level and thus its often enduring, systemic effects of design are neglected to be mentioned. Moreover, the most effective means through which to communicate design knowledge remains a complex (and at times controversial) endeavor. In light of these issues, I’m drawn towards developing design methods targeted at the broader [interaction] design community that might help bridge this breakdown and simultaneously introduce designers to notions of redirective practice.
One approach to sustainment is envisioning and designing new social organizations that are, in some sense, alternative structures exemplifying redirection. Nonetheless, might another strategy be facilitating structural change via community exposure to and interaction with redirective methods or techniques? For instance, rather than introducing a design intervention to address current practices/ways of being, perhaps focusing on altering public perception with respect to issues like urban sustainability is a path toward fostering systemic change.
1My colleagues from Indiana wrote a paper discussing notions of design (among other things). I always found this passage helpful when conceptualizing the varying levels of how we talk about design from simply being about aesthetics or decoration, to a systemic perspective, eventually arriving at design essentially being about choosing among potential futures.
From this point, we may move through a progression of ever more thoughtful notions of design being in (i) the features of objects—an engineering and technology centered view, (ii) the affordances of objects—visual cues of form that reveal the underlying operational semantics of objects, and elements of visibility of form that predict usability or affect, (iii) the interactions between people and objects—the pervasive utterance in design circles that the design is in “verbs”, (iv) whole environments—the notion of design as intervention in an environment, (v) whole ecologies—the notion of design as a balanced, systemic organization, and finally (vi) futures—issues of sustainability and the idea that design is a choice among future ways of being (p. 7).
introducing culturaLogic
I am an interaction designer and researcher concerned with designing things that can affect people, societies, and cultures in profound ways. I have a background spanning anthropology, informatics, and interaction design–and am really interested in people, the places and spaces they inhabit, and how design interventions can make life more meaningful and intriguing. At the same time, I’m drawn to examining (and experimenting with) the role that interaction design can play in catalyzing social movements of change toward more crafting more viable human & ecological futures. My past research and design projects span these themes. In May I finished up a Masters in Human-Computer Interaction Design at Indiana University–and, along with David Roedl, recently won the Imagine Cup 2008 Interface Design competition in Paris, France.
I just made the move to Brisbane, Australia to start up work as a Fulbright Scholar in the design department at Griffith University’s Queensland College of Art. I’m also working in affiliation with Gall & Medek design firm–and various other organizations in Brisbane. I’ll post my thoughts and reflections on this new blog as I iterate through designs and encounter new ideas during my time in Brisbane (and beyond!). Feel free to comment or contact me if you’re interested in what I’m doing or, more importantly, have any feedback.