Refactoring tool:

Takes notes, both written and spoken, and allows the team to re-factor them on the fly to create both large-display representations and documentation.

Takes white board notes and both raw representation and refactored representation allows team to perform the following functions: sharing, storing, cross-referencing based on content and tags, refactoring on an ajacent screen for on the fly documentation and critical discussion.

Connects to internet and the networked libraries of the individuals invovled in the collaboration, cross-refrences with these libraries and posts visual connections on an large format screen.

Computer uses it’s own intelligence to refactor the results of a brainstorm and create it’s own version with meta data that connects to referenced files. This file can be parsed to use in the making process.

Library connector:

Looks at connections between libraries and makes associations between the content to form predictive common interests.
Creates a mood board document from the combinations of libraries surrounding a particular topic,search, or file. Document is set-up for web and print viewing, keeping in mind the excersice of pin-up.

Management

Accountability tool:

A tool that helps organize and establish positive interdepedence and later tracks progress on the project by individual accoutability.

Project phases feature:

A function of tools that is aware of project phases and adapts intelligently to offer assistance according to the particular project phase.

This type of thinking is cognitive processing of information around a common point, an attempt to bring thoughts from different directions into a union or common conclusion.

Divergent thinking:

This type of thinking starts from a common point and moves outward into a variety of perspectives. When fosering divergent thinking, teachers use the content as a vehicle to prompt diverse or unique thinking among students rather than a common view.

Refrenced from this link

Productive collaboration:

Divergent thinking that leads to an abundance of ideas and possible design directions.
Like a think tank. Participants are treated as autonomous producers.

Directive collaboration

Covergent thinking and efforts of a group which is utilized and managed in order to produce a single outcome.
Like an assembly line. Participants are treated as components of a process.

Sharing is fundamental part of designing. It’s not design, without the intent to produce some sort of shared output.

There is a similar relationship between collaboration and design practice. If you treat design as a practice which includes the design of relationships with people, than you must engage in the act of collaboration at some time.

Collaborations are commonly formed for working on a project, followed by some type of shared output. The nature of shared output that comes as a result of collaboration requires different demands for sharing. These demands are even more varied when collaborations occur in an open-source environment.

This presents an area of opportunity to explore the affordances and create new tools surrounding collaboration.

At minimum there is need to modernize collaboration tools for designers.

Contents

[hide]

Human(Designer’s) Affordances

I plan to develop an understanding and form my own stance on the idea of human affordance as it pertains to the role of a designer. As a part of our group work, this understanding will become a tool by which we can understand the psychology of the designer/tool interaction. This involves researching and reporting on current research surrounding the topic, re-factoring this research to fit our needs and developing an output for the group to use as we make prototypes.

1. Research & Report.
2. Create a conceptual tool as a guide for building prototypes.
3. Use the guide to build my own prototype.
4. Document the process.

Collaboration

Investigate the topic of collaboration through reading, writing, making and testing. The ultimate outcome of this project would be a tool that assists in more productive collaboration between designers. I find specific interest in tools that assist in ideation and brainstorming and would like to investigate how the affordances of these tools change according the the scale of the collaboration. In my experience, the first step in successfully contributing to a collaboration is too clearly understand what unique affordances you as an individual offer to the project. With this you know what you can confidently offer and also what to allow others to contribute. I would like to design a conceptual tool that assist designers in this process of self-reflection.

1. Compile a selection of existing research on the topic of collaboration.
2. Re-factor this compilation through writing and designing diagrams.
3. Approach the topic of scale and experiment with it.
4. Address the idea of self-reflection and create an informative output.
5. Develop a tool prototype that assists in creating productive collaborations.
6. Document the process.

Tools for making tools

I am very interested in helping designers define their practice. It seems that one of the main points of differentiation between stylists and media designers is the whether or not the designer uses their own tools or develops a habit of making their own. To research this topic, I believe I face two obstacles. First, helping designers understand the concept of a practice and the need for tool-making. Second, developing a tool that allows them to make tools. In other words, this project involves both the task of explaining the cognitive concept and designing a tool to help them take advantange of this new understanding.

• handheld and can be easily moved
  • portability
  • think with hands
  • vary location
  • enable social interaction, collaboration
  • enables multiples for crit, comparison, juxtaposition in small field of view
• fixed in space, not easily moved
  • it’s a place to go to – exists in space (and in the head)
  • enables people to come together without planning
  • site specificity – relation to culture, objects, context
• various scales
  • pixel scale, – scale of objects on a page or screen. Allows for manipulation and juxtaposition of intangible objects.
  • hand scale, 4″ – intimate, fine use of hands
  • book scale, 8″ – good for writing and reading, narrow field of view enables single focus
  • arm’s length scale, 3′-4′ – enables simultaneity, broad gestures, fills field of view
  • human scale, 5′-8′ – evokes emotion, enables standing, full body sensation
  • car scale, 12′ – requires movement to see entire,
  • building scale, 20′ – evokes shelter, social, modulates light
• defines and visualize a physical or imaginary location in space – enables spatial mental representation & manipulation
• sit/stand
• can spread-out work

Sketching

• little prep
• rough work easy
• lots of ideas quickly
• low cost materials means little censoring
• tangible output to assist in metaphor, reflection, ???
• helps brainstorm, idea generation
• spontaneity and serendipity

Refined, precise, detailed

• engages fingers, hands in gestures
• learning curve enables fine, controlled motor skills
• wide range of expression possible
• allows for manipulation of fragile materials
  

Broad, large, expressive

• big gestures
• enables use of arms, other parts of body
• wide field of vision

Tools

• evocative, tool has character
  • specific, narrow-range, idiosyncratic, rich, evocative
  • general, adjustable, wide-range
• learning curve
  • learning curve minimal, fast to use
  • learning curve maximal, lots of nuance to expression
  • both are possible in some, but not always
• tools for making tools – custom for the designer’s practice, or specific project
• tools for making processes - custom for the designer’s practice, or specific project

Code

• create sequences, interactions, behaviors
• create tools both digital and tangible
• handle complex data
• works independent of human engagement

Research

• comprehend an existing body of knowledge
• add to bucket of inspiration
• understand existing constraints and opportunities
• re-factor and formulate individual stance
• can initiate deep thinking
• learn from others instead of repeating the process

Reflection

• juxtaposition – see ideas in comparison to each other
• isolation – of person, or of content
  • focus, eliminates context, losing yourself in it, flow
• viewable outside the mind – tangible, in the world, sensible
• evokes ideas in the mind
• editable

Collaboration

• social interaction
  • group can see the same thing, shared experience
  • each can communicate with others
  • each can manipulate thing
  • “eye-contact”
• pin-up
• synchronous and asynchronous discussion
• divide into parts for individual work
• scale of collaboration requires some different approaches

Idea generation

• visualization of ideas
• externalize & organize
• think by writing
• think by sketching
• think by making
• serendipity
• inspiration
• define principles/constraints
• enables complete absorption/flow
• disrupt flow/absorption

Learning/design process

• test ideas
• experiment with multiple approaches
• learn medium in context of project
• learn materials in context of project
• organize
• make a mess
• reorganize/refactor
• sequence
• breakdown into tasks

Manipulating Psychological State

• ability to change modes through the day
• concentration
• distraction
• entry into “flow”/absorption/focus
• contemplation
• daydreaming
• discharge nervous energy
• create nervous energy
• enable thinking/analysis by moving around (physically/mentally)

Contents

[hide]

As I began to explore ways of depicting this model of the designer’s practice, it became obvious that the act of collaboration must be considered and included.
I began by trying to define collaboration for myself by first seeing where it fits in relation to the rest of a designer’s process.

I started with a hierarchy. Projects are what designers engage in as a part of their Practice. There may be multiple projects within a practice. A designer’s practice may also include relationships with others’ practices. These relationships are called Collaborations.  This hierarchy seemed to work, but failed to acknowledge the scale of collaborative experiences from those that are rich and intimate, to others that are more like remixing or crowd sourcing.

Reminders

It is advantageous then to establish a few guidelines as reminders for developing our model:

1. This model depicts designers, not the whole world of workers and thinkers.

2. This model depicts a designer’s practice rather than the details of their process for a specific project. The word “practice” assumes there are established values and methodologies; modes of thinking and making, that are fundamental and idiosyncratic to the designer. By focusing on practice, we can also avoid the trouble of deciding who and who is not a “designer.” Rather we accentuate the common practices of designerly-minded people.

3. This model should not focus on depicting the practice of a traditional designer in an established industry. For example, the process of a graphic designer working in a typical design studio is an already understood concept; there is no need for us to be concerned with clarifying this.

4. Occam’s razor reminds that the simplest answer is often the most correct. I feel comfortable with staying above some of the complex details and differences in designer’s methods, ways of thinking and collaborating. It is by simplicity that our loop of thinking and making is so powerful.

Sharing and Collaboration

From these thoughts I came to an important distinction that works for me when trying to cover the different ways designers collaborate. It is that all types of information exchange can be lumped into the action of sharing. However, when sharing occurs with an agreement, this is a collaboration, in the noun sense.

Designers share: Ideas, feedback, materials and resources, iterations, published work, remixes, tools and parts, etc. It can be done through a medium or third party. It can be one-sided or massively collaborative, immediate or delayed. Sharing does not only happen between people, computers can also share.

Collaborations, by my current definition, involve only people(designers) through the act of agreed-upon sharing. This agreement can be very formal to informal and unspoken. I’m leaning to the idea that collaboration must include expectations of reciprocation. Sharing happens frequently within a collaboration and an individual may be a part of multiple collaborations simultaneously.

By making the distinction of sharing as the action and collaboration as the relationship, I feel we can include these concepts into the model without an over abundance of complexities. As we come to understand these concepts at the meta level It will then be easier to dive into the details as they fit within what we have outlined.

See this diagram of sharing and collaboration:

Collaboration Diagram Sketches

Our outlined a flow chart “Hand>Tool>Content>Format” as a process to generate meaning raises a question: Are we assuming the human element in creating this meaning or are we overlooking it? The answer to this question leads to another important decision, that is to what extent to we immerse ourselves in the psychology of the human affordance and the complications associated with it.

Determining our interest in human affordance is particularly important as we explore the making of ideas. Mainly because there is so much variability in the act of making ideas. For example, there is at least two types of idea making: Ideas which lead to concept and ideas which assist in production. These two actions alone beg for two separate research agendas. Additionally, there are affordances that have a great impact on ideation and must be considered when developing tools and spaces for idea making. For example, I believe the affordance of time has the greatest influence on the resulting idea.

I have included a simple diagram depicting some of these thoughts: