Reading Materials

- Textbook knowledge, in addition to tactile knowledge, defines traditional craft mastery, programming at a high level requires both of these skillsets.
- “Digital media is a medium of multiplicity not originality” due to commands being re-used, the paper argues coding is more like slotting blocks together or adapting templates than creating something original.
- The paper also states that “Each new medium has bought a new slew of masters plying the new craft” so it could be interpreted as digital masters are simply the modern equivalent of carpenters, smiths, brewers etc. as the rise of digital technology has put more value onto their fields.

- Set realistic and attainable goals
- Smartphone apps and other interactive media are limited, the ReMind device forces a physical reaction and serves as a happy annoyance to prompt the user into action.
- Rewind (the final product) allows for a greater opportunity for reflection by creating a tangible choice or ‘friction’, and allowing easy opportunity for the user to cheat.
- Procrastination is the natural enemy of design, and overcoming that obstacle is what this paper's all about

- I personally agree with this paper on a conceptual level, as the definition of words has and always will constantly change and update over time with the gradual evolution of language, and to me 'craft' adequately describes the work of digital designers and software engineers, as they utiliaze and demonstrate their mastery of their material, in this case code, and their intricate knowledge of the subject, to produce something totally creatively driven.

- I disagree with this counter point, because the final results of digital design can vary so much that web pages and digital media can be unrecognisable from one stage of the production process to the next, and each piece can hold such a vast array of nuance across the multiple aspects an effective designer or 'digital craftsperson' must consider that regarding the construction of their digital work as anything less than art just seems unjust.

- Portfolios should be annotated
- This is good because designers are used to annotating.
- All designers need to do is write new annotations for an audience, rather than themselves. This means people can clearly see and read through the design process.
- This makes sense from a employer's point of view to allow them an insight as to what their designers process is as they design a product.

The paper was based around these two key quotes;
"How will you go about finding that thing the nature of which is totally unknown to you?" - Meno, Plato's dialogue (in Solnit)
and
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

The aim of the project was to imagine the previously unimaginable, by blotting out the most immediate answers, to possibly gain a chance at accessing the less plausible and most instinctive answers that stretch what is considered possible.

The execution of OWL draws on ideas from the schools of dramatic, psychological, and known recreational thought and combines them to put the participant through "a rapid series of formalised conceptual shifts" in order to "elicit nuanced, imaginative, and implausible responses".

Through these methods the project was testing a method in which to try and design in a way that is focused more on innovation than practicality.

Paper #1: OWL Project

Paper #2: Annotated portfolios

Paper #5: Digital Craft

I found the process quite interesting, seeing the design process re-imagined to change the focus from creating the most efficient new model of a product by slight increments to trying to create an entirely new and unique product with no limitations was very educational. Before reading this paper I hadn't thought to question the limitations of the standard process by designing a new one, and seeing that an official agency has tried a radical change is fairly exciting.

Unfortunately as this process has it's own flaws when put into effect, it's functionally useless as the participants aren't designers and don't know the limitations of the craft, or the limits of science as many of them were children. If the process was repeated with designers, maybe it would work, but this would corrupt the whole idea behind the OWL project, as designers would not be able to completely remove themselves from their knowledge of what works and what doesn't.

Paper #6: Distinguishing Concepts

- Art and science are generally distinguishable by the former utilising a vagueness in their use of words, and the latter science to use a more precise jargon. Design and architecture are hybrid fields, “straddling” the divide between art and science, and this makes it difficult to retain connections to both practices.

- This paper presents common terms across the lexis of both interactive art and architecture, in order to not forget their origins and we lose track of the interesting concepts the originally represented.

- On the subject of public and private space and the distinctions between, the paper states that our physical and digital space can no longer be considered in any sense ‘private’ due to the relentless overbearance of corporations using infiltrative technology, and the fact that all of the information that makes up our lives in this digital age can be accessed by multiple individuals means that by definition, it’s no longer exclusively our own.

- The commons is a category that lies between public and private space, and is a space built to accommodate the rights of the individuals within it rather than the restrictions that are present in all defined public areas. Grouping design work with the commons idea allows design more freedom, and also offers the new possibility of accurately gauging how much of its production depends on the production of its priors.

Two examples of defined terms

- Interactive is an umbrella term used to describe “everything from software to lighting to mobile devices”.
The argument in justifying this definition was ‘all art is interactive, because each viewer constructs a personal experience of it’, and the counter argument posed was that calling computer media interactive is meaningless because it simply states the most basic fact about computers.

- The User is a term that both stresses the distinction of production and use, and allows for the possibility that it may preclude the challenge of people learning a new skill that might open up new intellectual possibilities.

- I agree with this paper as the original meaning of words is important to remember, and the meanings they once held do pose some fascinating possibilities for discussion and analysis of creative media and design.
- The only downside I can interpret within the points made is that the whole culture of digital design and architecture is driven by searching for innovation and new ideas, it's the fastest evolving field in human history and as such will create it's own new vernacular, and devolving to their earliest uses may deny designers access to the higher echelons of digital description which have clearly necessitated the new descriptions.
- I agree with the term 'interactive' being overused in digital fields however, and there is a solid case to be made for it's retiring.

- I agree wholeheartedly with the premise of this paper, as the advantages from an employers perspective are immense, and the designer gets to explain more about their creative process and the amount of work that goes into each project, rather than just display the finished product.
- The only issue with it is it's implementation, the designer will have to convey the process without relying on technical design jargon and make the information accessable to people wthout a design background.
- Thorough documentation can only allow more complex information to be conveyed at a time where efficiency is paramount, as are all scenarios wherein a designer is asked to display their portfolio.

- The product invites a greater level of interaction with the user than current technologies designed for the same purpose, for example calenders and reminder functions on all smartphones. It does this by making a physical action (when the reminder pucks reach the top of the timer they fall off onto the floor) and the act of the user having to pick up the object prompts a personal struggle, the user can complete the task now, or postpone it by cheating the system.
- ReMind creates friction by presenting a rather tangible
choice. This is supposed to nudge users into reflection and
action, and is a true innovation in that field of technology, which I greatly admire.

Paper #7: Design Theories and Practice

- The paper's experiment seemed to pose the question: 'If you gave a subject a surplus of creative art supplies and then asked them to solve a problem, how would they form their solution, and which is the most effective?' They tested 8 different methods (brainstorming, mind-mapping etc.) on 14 students with technology, media and design backgrounds.
- They wanted to see how each background lent itself to the design process

- I consider this paper the most relevant, as the point it raises about maintaining different perspectives when thinking in the context of design is wholly agreeable, as it demonstrably leads to more effective and more universally ergonomic design all round.
- This paper was extremely difficult to analyse due to it's mixture of dense jargon and complexly semantic language.
- I found that this paper links back to ideas presented in papers 2 and 3, wherein the focus of the study is the design process itself, this paper goes on to expand on these ideas and I like the idea behind questioning the standards and refining the natural design process.

Paper #3: Taking our Sweet Time to Search

- This paper focuses on the research aspect of design, and highlights the key arguments of the value and quality of efficiency vs the value and quality of the knowledge and experience gained through prolonged search for information.
- The value of research is in its pursuit, the reason for research should be to broaden your mind and learn more that you knew before, not to rush through it and find the bare facts.

- I agree with the values this paper argues, that the longer search does yield greater quality of knowledge, and a more nuanced view on the research being conducted is certainly gained by reading multiple papers and scanning through to get to the relevant information, that is demonstrably true.
- However, the practical implications of this are few, as in the modern era the fast majority of research is completed to a set deadline, and quantitative data is best found efficiently, which is what most information searched for is.