On Logic, Research,

Design Synthesis…

Jon: A core theme of this issue of interactions has been the relationship between interaction design and education: how to teach it, how to learn it, and how to live it. As a designer, I’m obviously biased toward design education, as I see design as a core tenet of life, akin to reading and writing. Design has often been characterized as “ dreaming” or “problem solving,” both of which I consider underpinnings of human life. At the same time, I see the value in logic and pragmatism, and I’m often challenged professionally to “prove it” or “back it up with a sound, logical argument.” Do you think future generations of professionals in the interaction world will have to walk the line between Art (emotion) and Science (logic), or will Design with a capital D finally have its time to shine?

Richard: Can design truly shine without addressing both emotion and logic? Was a need to walk the line between art and science responsible for all the messes described in the first section of this issue, or is the culprit better described as an improper balance?

Roger Martin, whom we referenced in our first Interactions Cafe discussion, has written about how the predominant thinking in business— analytical thinking—is hostile to design, and how that needs to change. But he doesn’t argue that analytical thinking has no place.

Perhaps you can’t “prove it.” Perhaps you shouldn’t be expected to “prove it.” But is it wrong to expect to develop and use and provide rationale that can be subjected to some form of critique throughout and after the design process?

Is Tracy Fullerton wrong in teaching and emphasizing the importance of playtesting in her interactive entertainment program at the USC School of Cinematic Arts? Was Mark Baskinger wrong to observe the elderly and kids in his

inclusive design projects? Doesn’t such research contribute to a kind of “logical argument” that is essential?

Jon: I wonder if the word “rationale” should even be part of the designer’s language. A great deal of the abductive thinking Roger Martin describes is the “logic” of what might be. This isn’t logic at all: I think Roger is smart enough to realize his audience won’t respond well if he were to call it “the magic of what might be.”

The research Fullerton describes, and Baskinger conducts, is absolutely worthless without some form of generative and interpretative synthesis, and this synthesis isn’t logical. It’s sometimes appropriate, or comprehensive, or rigorous, or even repeatable, but the notion of there being a “correctness” to design synthesis is far-fetched at best. This phase of synthesis is being publicly glossed over, as design firms pander to businesses looking to get ahead: “Do a little research, and—bam!—innovative products! Design thinking in action!” User research is wonderful, but it isn’t Design thinking at all;