I have read most of the posts on Cross and instead of replying to each one, Ill just write my thoughts here. Like many of you, there are passages in the text that made me want to scream, others made me want to make a strong Gin and Tonic. This is a good thing! One thing I don;t think I read in the critique of the text is that we really need to take into consideration the context surrounding the publication. This was written in the late 1980’s. This is extremely important for a valid understanding of the arguments as laid forth in the text.

This is very first wave thinking, but it is the edge of first wave and the start of the discussion that motivates and propels the coming of second wave HCI.  You can tell by reading it with this perspective that professionals are beginning to have the conversations about what design is and how it is different from engineering, or engineering thinking. Do they get everything correct? No. But its a good start.

I think texts like these are best understood holistically, taking into account all the arguments in the text as well as the historical and cultural contexts that enrich the meaning of the argument. All in all, I think the contribution of this paper is to raise more questions than it answers, and I think it does this fairly well.

 

SO THIS IS MOSTLY WRONG AS JEFF DID A GOOD JOB AT EXPLAINING (THANKS).  Although I do standby the idea of reading a paper holistically, that part is still pretty cool.

Advertisements