So, I just finished reading the Lawson reading and I gotta say…it felt like I was back in IDP, especially with the ‘Design Problems’, ‘Design Solutions’, and ‘Design Process’ sections. Though worded differently, I could hear Marty echoing back these same words to me. So thanks Jeff! I felt really nostalgic!

It was very intriguing though to see some of the different types of designs that I’ve never heard of, but probably did before. My favorite had to be “Procrastination”. I did not know that there was this type of action when it came to the design process. I literally laughed when I saw this, especially when the description of it says, “…procrastination, is based on the idea that somehow the future may become more certain if only we wait a little.” All my life, I’ve been taught that procrastination meant “doing something later for what could be done now because you’re too lazy to do it” (mom’s definition) but to see an actual, legit, almost-justification for the action. Next time, I should counter my mother with this argument.

For “Noncommittal”, I was boggled at what the author described about the architects being noncommittal themselves. He wrote,

“Architects have now perhaps become slightly schizophrenic in their attitude towards flexibility.”

Schizophrenic…a bit harsh don’t you think? I’d like to think of it as making a way even if you yourself don’t see a way. Or maybe it can be wishful thinking at times. It’s just a matter of perception. Personally, using the example of the old buildings that Lawson used, I honestly admire that about architectures. Call me delusional, but if they can see a solution for a near to impossible situation and make it happen, I respect that. Like a makeup artist for example. I’ve seen women who looked as if life took a pillowcase full of nickels and smashed their face in have a makeup artist to make them look stunning. They don’t just laugh in their face and tell them, “Good luck with life! Next!” they try their hardest to build off of what they have in front of them to make something incredible. That’s the type of respect that I have for architects; to make the impossible possible.

And the last one was the “Throw-Away” design action, particularly relating to fashion. This design is one I’m not too particular in exploring. Though HCI/d does adapt this in some way, it is more in a form of evolution, not discarding it altogether. Landline phones evolved to smart phones, boomboxes evolved to iPods and mp3 players, and horse carriages evolved to cars. In fashion, you must think of a fad or design according to ‘what’s in’ constantly. Sometimes ‘what’s in’ can disappear quickly so one must always be on top of their game, constantly thinking of new ideas, new ways of wearing things, and constantly be on the uptake. Not really my cup of tea.

In the ‘Design Problems’, ‘Design Solutions’, and ‘Design Process’ sections, as I stated above, it reminded me so much of IDP, especially with the “Design Solution” section, #2. Though Marty did not go into too much detail about these principles in class (through the 7 Themes of Good Design), just from asking questions to using these in practice, I could definitely relate to #2. The subject of “there is no right solution to a design” has been echoed to me time and time again as a designer. Even when I inquire about a solution, it is repeated to me that there is no “right” answer. At times it frustrated me because I didn’t know if I was taking the right direction and wanted guidance, but even if I took another path, who knows how it would turn out. Design is walking blind and hoping you don’t trip down the stairs. It’s just a bunch of trial and error.