Once again, I’m fascinated with another article in the Journal of Design and Science published by the MIT Media Press, now with the following article called: “Design as Participation” by Kevin Slaven. So again, I wanted to share some excerpts, thinking in how I can find the balance between this approach and the Design Thinking approach.
[Encore une fois, je suis fasciné par un autre article dans le Journal of Design Science et publié par le MIT Media Press, cette fois l’article en question est intitulé: « Design as Participation » par Kevin Slavin. Encore une fois, je voulais partager quelques extraits (en anglais) en réfléchissant sur comment nous pouvons trouver l’équilibre entre cette approche et l’approche de la Pensée Design ou Design Thinking.]
« These are designers that do not understand themselves to be in the center of the system. Rather, they understand themselves to be participants, shaping the systems that interact with other forces, ideas, events and other designers. »
« …we are no longer just using computers. We are using computers to use the world. The obscured and complex code and engineering now engages with people, resources, civics, communities and ecosystems. Should designers continue to privilege users above all others in the system? What would it mean to design for participants instead? For all the participants? »
« Price was designing not for the uses he wished to see, but for all the uses he couldn’t imagine. This demands the ability to engage with the people in the building as participants, to see their desires and fears, and then to build contexts to address them. »
« Ontology is the philosophical study of existence. Object-oriented ontology (“OOO” for short) puts things at the center of this study. Its proponents contend that nothing has special status, but that everything exists equally—plumbers, DVD players, cotton, bonobos, sandstone, and Harry Potter, for example. In particular, OOO rejects the claims that human experience rests at the center of philosophy, and that things can be understood by how they appear to us. In place of science alone, OOO uses speculation to characterize how objects exist and interact. »
« This is the inversion of User Centric Design. Rather than placing the human at the center of the work, the systems that surround us – systems we depend on – take the appropriate center stage in their complexity, mystery, in their unpredictability. »