The 60’s were a time of change, with an expanding youth culture and many new and potentially revolutionary ideas becoming more prevalent. For example, the hippy ideals of peace and love became very popular in the early 60’s as the children of WWII grew up and began to think for themselves. The consumerist influence of America also began to effect the culture of young people in this country.

The changing culture was emphasised by the music of the period, with bands like The Who trying to establish a voice that represented their contemporaries in songs such as ‘My Generation’.

The 60’s were a time of hope and of new beginnings, but what happened to these ideas? 50 years on and we’re still fighting wars which many argue are unjust and unnecessary, there is intolerance and prejudice in within our societies and the consumerism that sparked the rise of the youth subculture and modern convenience has taken over our lives to the extent where our economy threatens to collapse when this consumerism recedes.

We are moving into a new decade again, can we regain some of the hope that was abundant in the 60’s.

I really enjoy music, all types of music. I’m quite proud of the variety of different types of music I have on my iPod. I am not, however, a musician. I can’t play any instruments or sing particularly well, but I can appreciate the skill in doing both, and I find great interest in tracing the influential history of different types of music to discover where they came from. I find music inspirational because of the ideas reflected in the music. Music is perhaps the most public form of art today, with massive record sales, internet downloading and the popularity of MP3 players. It is used to sell products and create interest on television programmes. I believe that any art form can inspire another, and so music can inspire an illustration or a sculpture could inspire a video.

Recently I have been listening to early punk and post-punk music and getting an appreciation for what they were trying to achieve. Bands such as the Sex Pistols and The Clash are examples of what can happen when people strike out against an established order. The whole punk movement was meant to shock, but not necessarily for shock’s sake. It gave a platform for people to express radical views such as anarchism and nihilism and to gain a following.

What punk represents is a music genre’s ability to kick start or drive a subculture. The music is someones voice and through their popularity the musician can become a voice for the masses. Other subcultures such as the Hippy movement and Black Metal movements have given different groups the same opportunities with varying degrees of success, but what get’s me about punk is the rawness of it. It was meant to be easy and accessible and that is definitely something I want to explore in my work. My work doesn’t have to be difficult for someone else to reproduce, it’s not about that. it’s not about showcasing a talent, but expressing an idea and getting it out there to the wider world. In the same way that John Lydon of The Sex Pistols couldn’t really sing by conventional standards, it was more about getting the ideas in the lyrics across.

Today we had a lecture from one of the members of Fuel design agency. I liked some of the work and some of it I wasn’t so keen on, but what struck me most about the talk was how they got started.

Together at art college in London, four friends decided that they didn’t like the briefs that were being set by their lecturers so they set about doing their own work. They produced self initiated work that appealed to them and fitted their way of working and what they wanted to do when they left university. From this they developed a magazine, and eventually formed the design agency.

Recently I’ve been having some problems with my work. Whilst I’ve been enjoying my work so far this year I hit a kind of block, but instead of struggling for ideas I have been struggling for motivation and direction.I have felt that although my work within one brief has had a direction, my work as an overall whole has been disjointed. This talk set me thinking that what I need and would benefit from is a personal target. Something that I can work towards that compliments my way of working and the work I’m doing, but gives me drive as it is also independent and has longevity for me. At the moment I don’t have any desire to stop doing set briefs like the Fuel guys did, but maybe if I had some format to display my work it would help to keep my work relevant to itself as well as the brief.

I’m not sure if I want to do a magazine by myself because to be honest at the moment I can’t be bothered with the hassle of publishing on my meager budget. My other options that I had thought about were a website or exhibitions. Exhibitions would obviously require space I don’t necessarily have and a fully functioning website may require expertise I don’t have. From this I thought about speaking to other students, friends who may be able to help and would like to be involved in this self directed format. This would alleviate the hassle of producing a zine by myself, or may lend me the expertise to be able to run a website. Now all I need are like minded people…

Watch this space…

The standard design process is normally described in four stages that basically work like this:

Research –> Ideas –> Development –> Final Piece

The process is intended to be fluid so that you can return to previous stages if necessary and rework your ideas or do more research if needed. The point, as I understand it, is to give a process and structure that you can work to so as not to miss out any of these important stages.

However, whilst I do feel the four stages are relevant and important, I think the structure of the process is far to linear to properly allow for creativity. I have, therefore worked out my own, more organic process that i feel suits my personal way of working better and seems to make more sense to me.

My idea is that a design process is like a tree. You are trying to get from point A to point B, or in other words from the cause (a brief or inspiration) to your final solution (whether it be a finished product or not). To do so you have a direct line like the trunk of a tree. This represents the methodical, logical research process that is structured around your subject matter. From this structure can form your ideas which, like the branches of a tree, can sprout from any part of the trunk. They are ultimately trying to get to the final point, but the route they take may go off in a completely different initial direction. they may lead to separate ideas, lead back to the research, prove to be successful or fail to reach the final target. Together these form a framework for experimentation and work, which are like the leaves of a tree. While it is important for the ideas and research to be solid, like a tree in winter it is bare without the leaves that represent the experimentation and work that results from the ideas and research.

May Contain IMPOTENCE

Barcodes contain information about their products. But what if they contained info on the unknown effects of the product. This was a project that resulted in designing a campaign to raise awareness  of our own bodies. So that we might realize what we come in contact with and how it effects us.  the ads were to be provocative and eye-catching. So we used powerful/controversial images to convey the extremes of our theory. For example above anf below are images of people using products, but within those products are chemicals that if used in large quantities or not properly could cause impotence or sterility.

May Contain STERILITY

Our culture chooses to be oblivious to the effects of the lifestyles we lead. As a member of one of the largest consumer cultures on the planet, it’s time for us to be responsible. We eat, wear, and use products that if used excessively and or wrong could cause permanent damage to us and others. This problem is a two-sided coin. As designers it is part of our responsibility to consider the product’s lifetime from creation until disposal. From the manufacturing to the dump and all the stops in between. We must also be aware of the new cultures created around the objects we create. Specifically ‘designed’ objects foster a ‘designed’ lifestyle. Whether we know it or not our lives are directly being shaped by the objects we interact with. Which ties into the other side of the coin. It’s time for the user and or consumer to take up his mate and walk! He or she must be accountable to themselves, to their own bodies. Read labels before we eat. Know the what goes into manufacturing your next personal electronic device. Take into account how has it been produced, cheap labor or free trade? Too long have we disregarded the task to take care of ourselves and fellow-man. And if we continue down this path the world we leave to future generations will be a horrible place to live.

May Contain THE TRUTH

The greatest challenges an agency like X faces come directly from the nature of its clients. Having chosen to exclusively work with international institutions and organisations, NGOs, the academic and cultural sector there are quite a few obstacles, challenges and trade-offs needing to be met and faced. Although it may seem as if the clientele is fairly uniform and the needs would be a pattern on which to perform, the case is not quite the walk in the park…

One of the challenges X is called to face is the nature of each institution and its unique character. Aspects such as hierarchies, bureaucracy, workflow and types of projects are different from organisation to organisation. Each one has its own procedures of dealing with their needs, with publishing public tenders and outsourcing. Here, tenders and procurements are key words which define the very nature of this challenge. Having to customize the phrasing and layout of tender proposals according to each organisation’s standards requires experience and efficiency, timely response and professionalism to respond to unique requests. Therefore, X is called to customize its response to fit each of those clients’ needs. Every case is an individual case and X finds itself re-designing and re-organising its approach when dealing with different organisations.

A second challenge also comes from the nature of the clientele and has to do with time frames. Usually, institutions and organisations have to deal with often encumbering bureaucracies which cost time and money, both for themselves and for their partners. It can sometimes be quite unexpected as to when an organisation will respond, how long it will take for a project to finally initiate and last but not least the issue of deadlines is essential to ensure trust with the clientele, therefore creating a bond with X. This basically means that at one point there maybe low workload and the next the company has to be extremely organised and efficient in order to cope with an overload of approvals and green lights to initiate projects.

Along those lines, it is also very challenging to maintain reputation. Once a company like X has notorious clients, others are almost sure to follow. This clientele requires high standards that can both be expressed with the physical outcome, the product or the reputation of the company. If an institution sees and recognises other clients as reliable, then it is more likely to begin a partnership with some level of trust and high-end expectations from the very beginning. It is a challenge to maintain the reputation, as it may well be a significant part of staying afloat in the market.

When dealing with organisations worldwide, distance is an issue. Clients need to be reassured there will be no delay in delivery and that the quality of the project will remain impeccable. It is up to the company to do its best and convince the client that it has the experience and the means to do so. As has been observed, distance can be a turn-off or a point of scepticism for the clients. X has managed to face this challenge by spreading its offices all over the world, thus making communications easier and with the use of worldwide partnerships, therefore eliminating distances. Personal meetings with the company’s CEO work as a catalyst when it comes to convincing the client and becoming a living example of the elimination of distances.

As today’s world is getting more and more environmentally aware and concerned, it is important to stay up-to-date and understand the concern on the clients’ behalf. Combined with the above-mentioned unique character and the need for customising responses according to each client’s specific needs, X also needs to create a response to the clients soft values and become something more original and therefore, more necessary. So far, this is a challenge met, as X does stand out compared to others exactly because of its expression of concern for the main issues that most of the organisation it deals with are concerned with. Surely there are several competitors for X, yet through this expression of soft values, X has been able to differentiate itself from other companies.

Challenges such as global financial crises, political situations are challenges that can only be met by attempting to flexibly re-invent X in order to create new solutions for clients. The challenge here is the trade-off: what will X have to sacrifice in order to remain in the market either in the short or long-term? The planning needs to be careful since challenges like these are unpredictable and X needs to keep a strong look-out for the moves of the competitors, both as threat and inspiration. For any company, it is essential to be precise in the planning and make the right choices and the right sacrifices in order to be consistent with its values and clients. If for example, a financial crisis demands for a drop in prices so that a client will remain a client, then the choice has to be made carefully. If an administration changes, then it is important to recognise and quickly react to this change, offering new solutions, changing the marketing language to suit both X and the client.

In class Jeff was talking about how self is defined by the discourse and that there is no “puppeteer” real version of self that exists inside of us.

Wow.

I know Semiotics is not supposed to be looked at like religion and its a tool and it has holes, but I’m loving it. Call bullshit if you want, but think about how that changes everything when we design. I mean look at how we use personnas or scenarios. We build these tools up to work with a given circumstance. The specific ones are typically the ones that help us the most.

My question is about concurrent discourses (think ubiquitous computing or group interaction). Jeff used the example that he acts differently around his mother than other situations. We act a certain way given the context, but what about overlapping contexts. What about when you’re married to a co-worker. Or drinking with a professor. Is this a whole new discourse, or would you consider that a combination of discourses, and if so what changes?

I may be way off here, but before I was only thinking about a single discourse. That makes sense. But when we have a lot going on (as we often do) what does that mean for semiotics?

So the other night I decided to watch a Clint Eastwood western. I watched Hang Em’ High for the first time; since it was one of those movies I had wanted to watch and always eluded me (available on Hulu).

I really enjoyed it, but in particular, there was one scene that got me thinking about ready-to-hand, and present-to hand. I know Ben brought up this point earlier when he wrote about his experience with Casey playing DDR. Though my point is really that in the scene I watched, the director used some interesting techniques to really capture the visual action, and make Clint Eastwood’s handling of a gun look very ready-to-hand.
Here’s the scene, where Clint Eastwood’s character (who is an expert gunman) guns down a criminal that had tried to kill him earlier:

I know this film is a work of fiction, but it is kind of scary to fathom that there are people that are so well trained to use firearms that their guns become ready-to-hand. Then their intention to kill becomes reality, almost as if their mind kills another person instead of their hands and a gun. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people; well, while I don’t completely agree with that saying, in the case of this scene, I’d say the ready-to-hand-ness of the gunman is pretty well portrayed.

Now that I’ve said that, since we’ve been talking about sequences lately, I thought I’d do a sequence analysis so the director’s design is out there, in front of us, and we can think about how he used camera/film techniques to portray Clint Eastwood’s character as a tough, pissed off, expert gunman who can shoot so well with a revolver that it’s ready-to-hand to him.

Well, after looking back, it’s interesting how rapidly the shots begin to change and cuts happen as tension builds before Eastwood guns down the criminal, and then the shots get longer again after the shootout and calmness returns. I’d say that this is a classic example of rhythmic montage: the cutting of the shots is based on the visual narrative, and the feeling that is being communicated to the audience, (of calmness or high intensity), is communicated through the contrast of a rapid succession of shots, or rather, long slow shots.

Ok, that’s all for now,

-Joe

So I asked this in class, but I wanted to open it up on the forums.

“Can we do semiotics, can we talk about it, without using phenomenology to explain our understanding of the text?”

Jeff’s comment was that’s how they thought about it in the 60’s but they realized there was a missing piece is assuming the signifier connected directly to the signified in an obvious way. But we now know that way is not so obvious. Yet, I believe there were some people who maybe disagree and that there is a bit of separation. If that’s true, please let me know because I’m having an impossible time of separating the two ideas in my head. I feel like at this point semiotics is just a way of looking at phenomenology, you know: things as symbols or representation that connect meaning and message from a supplier to a receiver. Like how UPS delivers my birthday ( november 12th ) cookies from my mom to my house.

..jaMEs

My phenomenology account of critique is on this concept design called 10/GUI, reinvent desktop human-computer interaction design.

I found it interesting that there are already many critiques going on in the comment area, and someone even wrote a post to exclusively critique this concept. I think it would be better to write my own before taking a look at others’ critiques, which will be an interesting read.

This video contains both the design and design rationale. So I guess I am going to critique both, but focused on the design. I have so much to say about this proposed new interaction, but I feel I am not there yet. Just post this as a place holder and will come back later.

Here are the clusters I came up from watching the interaction and reading one of the comments regarding to the video. I am not sure if they are good clusters or not. You don’t have to look at the video to tell me that, so here they are,

with ten fingers rest on the pad, the design let me think of playing piano, and I did feel a sense of freedom of operation

but with further examination, I found this design asks a high requirement for the hand/fingers (branches listed below)
• full use of fingers, I cannot as eating as operating for some tasks (ignore the accessibility issue)
• the fingers have to be clean and dry, but my hands (and the commentator’s) are most of the time sweaty, so worried about the pointer “jump” issue
• it could not meet the gamer’s need,
• it is good at general target but bad at small/precise target
• since ten fingers are on the pad, there could possibly be unexpected use (i.e. different finger position, finger joints touch…).

Instead of free, the design restrict the hands (explain)
when use a mouse, the hands stay separate, the design throw the mouse away but also sacrifice the hands position. It bring two hands together in a restricted manner(and it doesn’t have to be that way), to feel naturally, I see “break” the pad while still keep the function would be a better choice.

These are some of the first clusters, and I have some more clusters regarding to the software solution. I know it is too much for now, but there must be some that are not good clusters,

<smile>

Design is one of those fields in life where you must not receive a formal classroom education to be productive. Yet, haven’t you noticed how much the work of two different designers with an informal training can differ? Or how  even an “educated” designer’s work can look pitiful and useless besides that of a self-taught? Well mates, as much as the difference in their results can lie in the external factors present during their work, it also and most importantly lies in the amount of design theory they master.

In this post, we will tackle two main theory families. By the time you finish reading them, believe me, much will have been added to what you knew as a designer. It will then be your responsibility to share your knowledge with others! Remember to leave your opinions in the comment section and we will take the discussion further.

A/ Typography

1. Typography, Part 1

” Avoid all upper-case headlines, they are much harder to read because words formed with capital letters are monotonous rectangles that offer few distinctive shapes to catch the reader’s eye.”

:: See lesson ::

..

2. Learning about type

” Typography is the process of designing, arranging and modifying type. Arranging type involves a number of techniques:changing point size, width, leading, letter-spacing and kerning. Don’t worry if you do not know what these terms are, we will cover them shortly.”

:: See lesson ::

..

3. Choosing type

” Who will read your beautifully set text? Scientists, lawyers, engineers, echo boomers, children? If it’s not obvious from the text, then find out. Historical ligatures may not go down too well with pre-school kids.”

:: See lesson ::

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

As a compliment, take a look at:

+   8 simple ways to improve typography in your designs

+   5 simple steps to better typography

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

B/ Gestalt principles of perception

4. Overall view

” Gestalt is a psychology term which means “unified whole”. It refers to theories of visual perception developed by German psychologists in the 1920s. These theories attempt to describe how people tend to organize visual elements intogroups or unified wholes when certain principles are applied.”

:: See lesson ::

5. Principle 1: Figure Ground Relationships

” Elements are perceived as either figures (distinct elements of focus) or ground (the background or landscape on which the figures rest).”

:: See lesson ::

.

..

6. Principle 2: Similarity

“ As Gestalt principles go, the principle of similarity would seem to be one of the simplest to grasp. It states things that are similar are perceived to be more related than things that are dissimilar.”

:: See lesson ::

..

7. Principle 3: Proximity, Uniform connectedness and Good Continuation

” Things that are close to one another are perceived to be more related than things that are spaced farther apart. // elements that are connected by uniform visual properties are perceived as being more related than elements that are not connected. // elements arranged on a line or curve are perceived to be more related than elements not on the line or curve. “

:: See lesson ::

8. Principle 4: Common Fate

” Humans tend to perceive elements moving in the same direction as being more related than elements that are stationary or that move in different directions. “

:: See lesson ::

.

..

9. Principle 5: Closure

” When looking at a complex arrangement of individual elements, humans tend to first look for a single, recognizable pattern. “

:: See lesson ::

…

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Even as beginners, you must have guessed that design theory is not limited to typography and Gestalt principles! Among the remaining theories important to master for a good design, color and grids are the ones we will next explore. Remember to bookmark this blog and check out later for part 2.

</smile>

Robin Williams will tell you how CRAP design can actually be made into a good one.*

She is the author of The Non-Designer’s Design Book

Turning Technologies Student Response System

Evaluating the most effective and efficient ways technologies can be integrated into classrooms to promote learning is an essential responsibility of any instructional technologist designer. A relatively new technology I am particularly interested in is the Student Response Systems (aka clickers). As you may know, Indiana University ended the contract with the clicker company eInstruction on August 31, 2009 and started a new contract with Turning Technologies just last month. It seems that one of the main reasons for switching clicker providers was the integration of this technology with Oncourse, which means that professors now have the potential to easily grade participation and attendance of big groups through the click of a button.

For the phenomenological aspect of the critique, I am planning to use a similar approach to Kickasola about focusing on a feeling or emotion to explore the interaction design. I plan to use the feeling of “social inclusion” which is purportedly experienced by students using clickers, especially in big groups.

Unfortunately I do not have any experience using these devices and I was wondering if some of you might have already used them either as a professor or as a student. Even though I will particularly focus in the Turning Technologies brand to write the critique outline, I will greatly appreciate any ideas, insights or suggestions about any other phenomenological approaches that could be applied when using clickers of any brand.

By the way, now that I think about it, I’m not sure if my critique should be from the student’s point of view or the professors’ or both… hhhmmm

I have just completed reading Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell, a well-written book about DNA and what Meyer asserts as evidence for Intelligent Design. To sum up the argument of the book, Meyer looks at organisms and thinks “there is no way this happened on its own; there must have been a designer!”  I admit, after receiving this book as a gift from a dear friend, I was stoked in my quest for the truth about the existence of a god.  Was it possible that this book would propose veritable proof about something that, until today, has only been regarded as metaphysical in nature? Does not “signature” imply that some evident sign can be observed? I could not help but wonder, at that particular moment, if the designer had left an unmistakable mark in cells pointing back to the origin of life.  Could this hypothesis be settled by reading this book? Maybe Meyer could answer the all-important questions or better yet, get evolutionists and atheists onboard! Exuberant as I was, perhaps I was jumping ahead of myself.

Here is how the book is being marketed:

“Signature in the Cell is the first book to make a comprehensive case for intelligent design based upon DNA. Meyer embarks on an odyssey of discovery as he investigates current evolutionary theories and the evidence that ultimately led him to affirm intelligent design. Clearly defining what ID is and is not, Meyer shows that the argument for intelligent design is not based on ignorance or “giving up on science,” but instead upon our growing scientific knowledge of the information stored in the cell.”

His argument fits that description nicely. The claim that there is intelligence (other than human intelligence) in nature is not new. The claim has been present in human thought since the earliest recorded written documents. What IS new about Meyer’s presentation is the packaging of the claim in the cloak of scientific methodology which was used by Darwin himself. This methodology makes Meyer’s inference of intelligence in nature a valid scientific endeavor. He even admits he is not engaging in operational science (he doesn’t perform his own experiments, but rather takes the information gained from other scientists of notoriety) but historical science. He also quotes plenty of non-theist scientists who have addressed the same subject in similar ways. (Think about it: if Meyer tries to disrepute every scientist who opposes his theories, would he not be loosing the attention of his target audience?) Meyer is careful not to discredit Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution; in fact, he uses data from many scientific fields to develop a strict discipline of analysis employing the same method of inferential reasoning that Darwin used. He stresses that his theory of ID does not oppose evolution in the sense that common ancestry exists between living organisms, but he does oppose Neo-Darwinism. (ND is the belief that natural selection, acting on randomly generated genetic variation, is a major but not the sole cause of evolution).  Meyer asserts that ND fails to provide a philosophical theory that can produce large-scale designs in form and complexity. I have to add, he is not the only scientist to question ND’s adequacy in explaining evolution.

I have to interject my own observation about Meyer’s approach to evolutionary theory.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but evolution does not actually create life…evolution only works with what it already has available, yes?  The evolutionary theory was never meant to explain the origin of life; its purpose was to explain how life evolved.  Darwin never concerned himself with how life began. The following video helps to explain how RNA/DNA replication occurs and why it is not necessary to create a supernatural being to explain the origin of life.

The Origin of Life Made Easy

Throughout the book, Meyer refers to information and more specifically that information requires intelligence. It is a pity that he never bothers to define what he means by “information” though.  I have to assume he is referring to the information gleaned from genome sequencing.  Perhaps if he admitted what he meant by “information” it would open up the possibility that he was wrong. In my admittedly, unscientific background (as far as formal education goes), I believe that creationists and/or believers in Intelligent Design have a habit of conflating information as rigorously defined (e.g. Shannon) with ascribed meaning, whereas the rigorous definitions explicitly avoid such flux.  The appearance of design in living things has been understood by most biologists to be an illusion—a powerfully suggestive illusion, but an illusion nonetheless. As Crick himself put it thirty-five years after he and Watson first observed the structure of DNA, biologists must “constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”

Though Meyer asserts that ID is science and argues the best explanation of the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause, he refuses to infer the nature of the designer, as this would be beyond the realm of scientific exploration. In his opinion, two possible suspects exist as possible designers: extra-terrestrial beings and God the creator. I am not certain of the existence of extra-terrestrial beings; though, some believe our government could answer that begging question for us! The question about God still looms in the shadows for me. I respect Meyer’s great accomplishment of re-framing this knowledge of intelligence in nature in a form which is acceptable to the vast population of reasonable people—a format which uses tools of science; he does not rely on religious scripture or religious activity and there is no appeal to the supernatural.  Unexplained phenomena are not evidence, however; and in my opinion, ID is not science because of the use of subjective knowledge rather than objective knowledge required by science. I choose to continue to call it simply the Design Theory.

I wish to express my disappointment with Richard Dawkins for not accepting a debate with author Stephen Meyer.  In my opinion, it would have been in the best interest of science for him to accept Meyer’s invitation.  Dawkins hasn’t always refused to debate creationists. In 2007, Dawkins debated Dr. John Lennox, (MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., and D.Sc.) In spite of all the degrees accredited this man, he still maintains his belief in God. (I can definitely respect that!) Lennox is a popular Christian apologist and scientist whose dedication has been to interface between religion and science. Science, he argues leads him to believe in God.  For me, until undeniable evidence appears in high-caliber peer-reviewed journals, Intelligent Design should be held as theory; I would not go so far as calling it pseudoscience, but I have to admit itfeels like it.

Let me know your thoughts as we continue our search for truth together!

So I took a look at the activity theory reading for this week, and it’s figures were very reminiscent of something I’ve seen before: the triforce from The Legend of Zelda. There are three pieces of the triforce: the triforce of power (top), the triforce of wisdom (bottom left), and the triforce of courage (bottom right). Let’s compare this to the activity theory diagram, and let’s see what we can get and gain insights about this little exercise (I don’t know this in advance):

The top triangle in activity theory (paralleling the triforce of power): so the top triangle represents the relationship between the instruments, subject, and object. If this relationship were to mimic Zelda, then power comes through the relationships between these three aspects. Hmmm… by knowing these relationships, we are getting to know the people, and how they will become transformed by the object and the objects in their lives. OK… so how does the instrument come into play? Well, I guess by knowing what types of instruments are available to the designer to create the objects and the transformation of people, as that will affect what and how we can design. I guess that does create some sort of power, in the same sense power is used in the meta-analysis of this heuristic aid. It is the power to really know how you will change the people through what you design, possibly subjugating them, or freeing them.

The bottom left triangle (paralleling the triforce of wisdom): this triangle represents the relationships among subject, rules, and community. Well, wisdom to me is the utilization of prudence in crafting knowledge for others to be able to use at a later time. So… if we take a look at how rules affect people, we can be able to learn what type of world they live in. By knowing what type of world people live in, we can gain some insights on how their world is built and maybe what will happen if we change it. This will also help us to see how each subject fits into the community at large, and how rules play a part in the community, and also for the subject in that community. So far me, taking wise design decisions means that one studies these aspects of the people we are designing for, such that we don’t introduce any “planned” evils into their community, and also having a healthy knowledge of the rules they like to follow and live by. So I guess then being able to articulate activity theory in this light is kind of like the wisdom designers must be able to have in creating and executing on their designs.

And let’s take a look at the bottom right triangle (paralleling the triforce of courage): this relationship takes a look at the object made, the division of labor among people, and the community at large. As a designer, this area connotates to me to taking a look at how our design affects the system of the world at large. It is through the object that we create that we affect the world. Whether it is software or an artifact, this thing ends up changing how people work: from simply the people who have to build the thing, to seeing how that object potentially changes how much work each person in the workforce has to end up doing to get their job done (this can be for good or for bad) – and it also reminds me of the consequences of design Erik talks about. We need to be able to take the courage to live with our consequences of how this object will change how people will work (even play is considered work by some), and how this ends up affecting the community at large. Even something as “simple” as Photoshop has completely changed the amount of “courage” out there, as now it is a pre-req in order to do many things in the creative industry, which has transformed what objects that industry makes and whom can be involved in that industry as well. So I guess this analogy holds as well, which is epic, as I didn’t think this was going to semantically happen (just thought the lines would be the only thing that would hold).

So then this begs the question: was Link (and by Link, I mean the creators of The Legend of Zelda) knowledgeable on this topic when they were creating the triforce. Were the original makers of activity theory psychic enough to see the power behind this symbol to many gamers in life down the road. I guess the obvious answer is that this is a simple coincidence, but it would be cool if this had any impact whatsoever. And just like when all three parts come together, the goddesses of Zelda created the world and all of its people, design creates the world we end up living in when we put the triforces of activity theory together (after all, it’s just another tool we can use to help us design the world we live in). That’s some creative powers there!

I guess maybe a flip side of this is necessary, but I’m going to leave that open to the rest of the class.

Two thesis related posts in a day, I must be on a roll. This post actually marks a milestone, the following rough bit of material is the last bit of original writing I’ll need to do for chapter 2. What remains will be tidying up, fixing typos/spelling/grammar, “concludings” and some major cutting. Sadly chapter 2 currently stands at 200+ pages and will need some major cutting I think to be a reasonable size. That’s a job for another day.

The following is meant to abstract some lessons for e-learning based on the literature around pedagogy reviewed in early sections (e.g. the one from earlier today. It continues my focus on diversity and change being key characteristics of e-learning, an observation that highlights a mismatch with the standard product and process being used for e-learning.

As I near the end there are an increasing number of cross references from this material to earlier material. Sorry, haven’t gotten around to linking them on the blog. This is likely to be only somewhat less annoying than the poor grammar and dyslexic typing.

Lessons from Pedagogy for e-learning

The above brief overview of the Pedagogy component of the Ps Framework forms the basis for the identification of four lessons for e-learning within universities from the literature on pedagogy. The first of these is that learning is an inherently diverse human activity. The second is that e-learning is only a relatively new human activity and is still changing and adding to the diversity of learning. The third lesson, and one based on this observation of increasing diversity, is that there is no silver bullet, no one universal approach to learning or to e-learning and that instead e-learning should perhaps be focusing on its ability to support this diversity. The final lesson is that any change in learning and teaching at university is reliant on changing the conceptions of the academics.

Learning is inherently diverse

Dede (2008) raises the question of whether or not there is just one pre-eminent way of learning/teaching for every student, for every subject, for all legitimate purposes of schooling? Like everything else in education, a balance is needed – one size does not fit all – even in online settings (Cuthrell and Lyon 2007). Different learners bring to the learning experience: different learning objectives; different prior knowledge and past experience; and, different cognitive preferences (Dagger, Conlan et al. 2005). The diversification and massification of the student body has led universities to shift their education rhetoric from a notion of “one size fits all” to a concept of tailored, flexible learning (Lewis, Marginson et al. 2005). Learning should not be one size fits all and can be customised to meet local requirements and this deviation from a standard model should now be seen as a strength (Cavallo 2004). A “one size fits all” approach ignores the importance of disciplinary culture (Jones 2009). There is no one best way of developing instruction (Davies 1991). Dede’s (2008) answer to his question is that given the spectrum of learning theories, it would appear that “learning is a human activity quite diverse in its manifestations from person to person”. He goes onto suggest that the field of instructional design can only progress if it recognises that learning is a human activity quite diverse in its manifestations from person to person and even from day to day (Dede 2008).

E-learning is new and changing

While, to some extent, Bates (2004) statement that e-learning does not change the fundamental process of learning in that students still need to read, observe, think, discuss, practice and receive feedback. However, e-learning is creating a new environment within which learning and teaching operates and is contributing to the creation of and need for new knowledge about learning and teaching. There is little understanding of the affordances of different technologies and how these might be exploited in particular learning and teaching contexts (Conole and Dyke 2004). There is a need to engage with the affordances and constraints of particular technologies to understand how new technologies can meet specific pedagogical goals of specific content areas (Mishra and Koehler 2006). The rise of e-learning is calling for and generating more than knowledge simply to inform instructional design theories. With the example of connectivism, it is possible to see new knowledge, enabled or required to some extent by the rise of technology, being generated at the other three levels of learning theories identified in Section 2.1.2.

E-learning, diversity and silver bullets

The diversity inherent in learning is not matched by the theories and philosophies around the use of information and communication technologies to support learning. Such approaches treat learning as a simple activity that is relatively invariant across people, subject areas and educational objectives; and, so most widely used instructional technology applications have less variety in approach than a low-end fast-food restaurant (Dede 2008). The apparent high costs of developing educational materials means, that at least for for-profit organizations, a “one size fits all” approach produces economies of scale that is likely to prevail over the potential of online technologies to support customisation for the needs of individual learners (Cunningham, Ryan et al. 2000). This tendency towards one size fits all is contributed to by successive generations of pundits espousing ‘magical’ media, the single best medium for learning or the universally optimal way of learning (Dede 2008).

The difference and diversity inherent in learning challenges managerialism – a rising trend within higher education as shown in Society in Place (cross reference) – which generally seeks to elide ambiguities and to standardise individuals and experiences (Danaher, Luck et al. 2004). The managerialist approach to standardisation is well served by the monolithic or integrated product model on which learning management systems are based (cross reference to procurement and software section in Product). Innovation and diversity are served less well by such a product model. Dede (2008) argues that

from an instrumental perspective, the history of tool making shows that the best strategy is to have simultaneously available a variety of specialized tools, rather than a single device that attempts to accomplish everything.

Improvement comes through changing teacher conceptions

Even with the diversity in learning and the change created by the introduction of e-learning, the practice of learning and teaching in universities remains much the same. While e-learning has provided a new medium, must teaching remains old wine in new bottles (Bates 2004). As shown in section 2.1.4 (e-learning usage from past experience) the majority of academic staff still rely on old, familiar pedagogies rather than actively engaging with the new affordances offered by technology. This is something that is only going to change when the university context encourages, enables and perhaps even requires, changes in the conceptions of learning and teaching held by academic staff. The on-going introduction of new technologies is unlikely to ever bring about such change.

References

Bates, T. (2004). The promise and myths of e-learning in post-secondary education. The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective. M. Castells. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar: 271-292.

Cavallo, D. (2004). "Models of growth – Towards fundamental change in learning environments." BT Technology Journal 22(4): 96-112.

Conole, G. and M. Dyke (2004). "What are the affordances of information and communication technologies?" ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology 12(2): 113-124.

Cunningham, S., Y. Ryan, et al. (2000). The Business of Borderless Education. Canberra, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs: 328.

Cuthrell, K. and A. Lyon (2007). "Instructional strategies: What do online students prefer?" Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 3(4).

Dagger, D., O. Conlan, et al. (2005). Fundamental requirements of personalised eLearning development environments. World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005, Vancouver, Canada, AACE.

Danaher, P. A., J. Luck, et al. (2004). Course management systems: Innovation versus managerialism. Research Proceedings of the 11th Association for Learning Technology Conference (ALT-C 2004), University of Exeter, Devon, England, Association for Learning Technology.

Davies, I. (1991). Instructional development as an art: One of the three faces of ID. Paradigms rgained: the uses of illuminative, semiotic, and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology: a book of readings. D. Hlynka and J. Belland, Educational Technology Publications: 93-106.

Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. J. Voogt and G. Knezek. New York, Springer: 43-59.

Jones, A. (2009). "Redisciplining generic attributes: the disciplinary context in focus." Studies in Higher Education 34(1): 85-100.

Lewis, T., S. Marginson, et al. (2005). "The network university? Technology, culture and organisational complexity in contemporary higher education." Higher Education Quarterly 59(1): 56-75.

Mishra, P. and M. Koehler (2006). "Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge." Teachers College Record 108(6): 1017-1054.

It’s almost a month since the last post from the first draft of my thesis. So, after much time away here’s the next installment. It’s probably rougher than previous versions – which says something – I’m still getting back into the swing of things.

The following is meant to be a description of learning theory within the context of e-learning at universities. It’s not a complete or in-depth examination of learning theories. Instead, it tries to illustrate that what we know about learning theory (in the broadest possible definition) is hugely complicated, diverse and ever changing. The intent is to argue that this is in direct contrast to characteristics of the common approach taken by universities to support e-learning. That is, an approach that focuses on stability and inflexibility.

Learning theories

The previous section (Section 2.8.1) argued that the quality of student learning within a university context is heavily influenced by the thinking, planning and strategies adopted by the pedagogues responsible for individual courses. This section seeks to summarise the research, literature and theories that have arisen to guide the thinking of pedagogues around learning. The following section cannot do justice to complexity, diversity, breadth and depth of research into learning. Explanatory accounts of learning range across culture, biology and cognition providing a multitude of theoretical perspectives drawing on different methodological traditions and bringing different educational phenomena into focus (Bell 2004). The scientific literature on cognition, learning, development, culture and the brain are voluminous (Bransford, Brown et al. 2000). Education, like other branches of the social sciences, has no single, unifying mature theory, instead theories, ideas and approaches coexist in various states of cohesion and tension (Dillon and Ahlberg 2006). There are many schools of thought on learning, and no one school is used exclusively to design e-learning (Ally 2004).

Given the diversity of perspectives, methodologies and schools of research associated with a variety of perspectives of learning, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to give a complete accounting of the research around learning. Instead the aim of this section is to establish the diversity, complexity, uncertainty and contradictions inherent in this research as it applies to the practice of e-learning within universities. This starts with a description the four levels of learning “theory” before a brief discussion of technology and learning theory.

The four levels of learning “theory”

Given the diversity of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives related to learning even defining learning and learning theory can be difficult. Definitions of learning differ based on approach and intended purpose and often reveal more about the perspective from which the person offering the definition sees learning (Siemens 2006). Definitions of what a learning theory is will likely differ between psychologists, computer scientists, instructional designers and other disciplines. However, it is possible to extract from literature such as Ertmer and Newby (1993) four levels or perspectives on learning “theory” or research. These four levels are: epistemology, descriptive theories from science, learning theories, and instructional design theories. Each of these four levels is briefly examined below with particular emphasis on the diversity, complexity and ever-changing nature of views within each.

Epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge and how we come to know things (Driscoll 1994), what does it mean to know (Siemens 2006). Ertmer and Newby (1993) in examining the connection between epistemology and learning theory identify two fundamental perspectives of epistemology: empiricism – the view that experience is the primary source of knowledge – and rationalism – the view that knowledge derives from reason without the aid of the senses. Performing a similar task, Driscoll (2000) adds a third epistemological perspectives of nativism – the belief that knowledge is innate or present at birth. Pallas (2001) identifies the proliferation of epistemologies as one of the most confusing developments in educational research over the past quarter-century and goes on to list a “welter of names” – positivism, naturalism, postpositivism, empiricism, relativism, feminist standpoint epistemology, foundationalism, and postmodernism.

Descriptive theories from science arise from disciplines including, but not limited to, the various branches of psychology, neuroscience, and biology that seek to understand how various aspects of human learning function. Seidel, Perencevich and Allyson (2005) argue that psychology can provide descriptive laws that describe how cognitive development, learning, meta-cognition and other elements of learning actually occur. Driscoll (1994) illustrates the influence of disciplinary perspectives by illustrating how behavioural, cognitive and social psychologists develop different views of learning. The contribution of theories arising from science is not limited to learning theory. Goldman (1986) argues that an understanding of the architecture of the human mind-brain is essential for primary epistemology. He continues to argue that epistemology, the history of which has shown strong currents against being interdisciplinary, should be a multidisciplinary affair (Goldman 1986).

Learning theories seek to provide insight into the act of learning (Siemens 2006). A learning theory comprises a set of constructs linking observed changes in performance with what is though to bring about those changes (Driscoll 1994). Discussions of different learning theories (e.g. Ertmer and Newby 1993; Driscoll 1994) tend to focus on three distinct viewpoints: behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism. These learning theories link closely to the three different perspectives of behavioural, cognitive and social psychologists mentioned in the previous paragraph. Historically it can be seen that, the cognitive perspective overthrew behaviourism in the 1950s and 1960s and also underwent a major shift in the 1980s and 1990s towards constructivism (Mayer 1996).

The on-going historical development of learning theories has not stopped. Mayer (1996) suggests that a fourth metaphor is likely with possibilities arising from either an assimilation and accommodation between the existing metaphors, or from an entirely new approach. One such entirely new approach may be provided by connectivism, a theory describing how learning happens in a digital age (Siemens 2005; Siemens 2006) based on the epistemological foundation of connective knowledge (Downes 2006). Table 2.3 provides a summary of the three existing broadly accepted learning theories and connectivism.

Table 2.3 does not capture the full diversity of learning theories. Mayer (1996) describes the six versions of constructivism identified by Steffe and Gale (1995) as “social constructivism, radical constructivism, social constructionism, information-processing constructivism, cybernetic systems, and sociocultural approaches”. Further, when the three main theories are closely analysed it becomes apparent that there are many overlaps in the ideas and principles (Ally 2004). Classifications of learning theories and theorists are contradictory (Siemens 2006) and confusing due to the use of different labels for categories, the grouping of major models and theorists in different categories and the use of vague concepts. Identifying where within the basic learning paradigms a particular theorists fits can be confusing due to theorists and their ideas evolving over time and subsequent changes to their ideas (Sackney and Mergel 2007). Rather than three competing theories, these can be though of as a taxonomony of learning with behaviourism being used to teach the “what”, cognitivism the “how” and constructivism the “why” (Ertmer and Newby 1993).

Instructional design theories are prescriptive theories that offer explicit guidance on how to better help people learn and develop (Reigeluth 1999). The origins of formal instructional design procedures have been traced back to the development of military training materials during the Second World War (Reiser 2001). Interest grew strongly during the 1970s and 1980s with a large increase in the number of instructional design models (Reiser 2001). Perhaps forming the basis for Postman (1995) claiming that while educators were once famous for providing reasons for learning, they had now become famous for inventing a method. Leading to a situation where the initial impression of these theories is one of diversity, followed by being perplexed by so many theories being at odds with one another (Duchastel 1998).

As a source of further complication, Shulman (1986) introduces the idea of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) that argues that treating a pedagogue’s content knowledge and the pedagogue’s knowledge of pedagogy as mutually exclusive domains resulted in teacher education that emphasised one over the other. PCK is the blending of knowledge about content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular aspects of content knowledge are best organised, adapted and represented within instruction (Mishra and Koehler 2006). Treating this knowledge as separate is not sufficient for capturing the knowledge good teachers require (Shulman 1986). Numerous research studies such that no optimal pedagogy is effective regardless of the subject matter (Dede 2008).

The above has sought to illustrate that “learning theory” consists of theoretical perspectives from at least four different levels. Each of those levels is characterised by significant diversity and in some cases confusion. In addition, some of the levels impact upon other levels in unexpected ways. The next section briefly discusses what happens when technology is added to pedagogy.

Technology and learning theory

There exist many different conceptual frameworks for describing the relationships among learning theories, pedagogical strategies, instructional designs and information and communication technologies (Dede 2008). E-learning, in general, does not change the fundamental process of learning (Bates 2004). However, research into how people learn online is in its infancy and further research is needed to provide insight into how to develop engaging and effective online learning environments in higher education (Herrington, Reeves et al. 2005). Writing in 2004, Bates (2004) suggested that since the use of the web for learning and teaching is less than ten years old, its application of learning and teaching was still evolving.

What research had been done suggested that the three established learning theories (behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism) all provide principles that can be used to design online instruction (Ally 2004). Any given pedagogical tool may incorporate perspectives from any of these three intellectual positions (Dede 2008). The actual applications of e-learning are highly dependent on the teacher’s epistemological preferences and their chosen pedagogy (Bates 2004).

In extending Shulman’s (1986) work on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) into the concept of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), Mischa and Koehler (2006) argue that

there is no single technological solution that applies for every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching”. Quality teaching requires developing a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and using this understanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations. Productive technology integration in teaching needs to consider all three issues not in isolation, but rather within the complex relationships in the system defined by the three key elements.

Dede (2008) makes a similar point that no application of technology to learning and teaching is universally good. Instead the best approach is to analyse the nature of the curriculum, students, and teachers in order to select the appropriate tools, applications, media and environments (Dede 2008).

References

Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of Educational Theory for Online Learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. T. Anderson and F. Elloumi. Athabasca, Canada, Athabasca University: 3-31.

Bates, T. (2004). The promise and myths of e-learning in post-secondary education. The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective. M. Castells. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar: 271-292.

Bell, P. (2004). "On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education." Educational Psychologist 39(4): 243-253.

Bransford, J., A. Brown, et al. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. J. Voogt and G. Knezek. New York, Springer: 43-59.

Dillon, P. and M. Ahlberg (2006). "Integrativism as a theoretical and organisational framework for e-learning and practitioner research." Technology, Pedagogy and Education 15(1): 7-30.

Downes, S. (2006, 3rd October 2009). "Learning networks and connective knowledge." Instructional Technology Forum, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html.

Driscoll, M. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA, Allyn & Bacon.

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA, Allyn & Bacon.

Duchastel, P. (1998). "Prolegomena to a theory of instructional design."   Retrieved 4 October, 2009, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper27/paper27.html.

Ertmer, P. and T. Newby (1993). "Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective." Performance Improvement Quarterly 6(4): 50-72.

Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA, harvard University Press.

Herrington, J., T. Reeves, et al. (2005). "Online Learning as Information Delivery: Digital Myopia." Journal of Interactive Learning Research 16(4): 353-367.

Mayer, R. (1996). "Learners as information processors: Legacies and limitations of educational psychology’s second metaphor." Educational Psychologist 31(3/4): 151-162.

Mishra, P. and M. Koehler (2006). "Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge." Teachers College Record 108(6): 1017-1054.

Pallas, A. (2001). "Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity." Educational Researcher 30(5): 6-11.

Postman, N. (1995). The end of education. New York, Vintage Books.

Reigeluth, C. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ, USA, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reiser, R. (2001). "A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design." Educational Technology Research and Development 49(2): 57-67.

Sackney, L. and B. Mergel (2007). Contemporary learning theories, instructional design and leadership. Intelligent leadership: constructs for thinking education leaders. J. Burger, C. Webber and P. Klinck. New York, Springer: 67-98.

Seidel, R., K. Perencevich, et al. (2005). From principles of learning to strategies for instruction: empirically based ingredients to guide instructional development. New York, Springer.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). "Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching." Educational Researcher 15(2): 4-14.

Siemens, G. (2005). "Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age." International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2(1).

Siemens, G. (2006, November 12, 2006). "Connectivism: Learning theory or pasttime for the self-amused."   Retrieved 9 September, 2009, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm.

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge, Lulu.com.

Steffe, L. and J. Gale (1995). Constructivism in education. Mawah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

My first Solo Project - 1991

My motto for design “Strength Function Beauty” comes from Vitruvius – a Roman architect from the first century B.C. in his book “The Ten Books of Architecture“.  This has become my mantra.  I use these principles in balance to analyze every part of my projects, products and design.

I read lots of theory books from ancient to modern and the only thing that I have consistently followed is Vitruvius.  I love the fact that I am in a profession that has roots so deep and consistent that a two thousand years later I can still apply the theories for design and building.  A sense of history and continuity is very important to me and one reason why love my profession.

First:  Strength – materials must be strong and long lasting, stand the test of time.

Second:  Function – how it works – optimal performance, ergonomic, operating consistently.

Third:  Beauty – it must also be beautiful.

By trying to keep these three elements in balance I hope to make my work the best it can be.

I was stunned during the class exercise about falllingwater, when someone concluded the shape of balcony and floor is parallel to the edge of waterfall, and it is obvious and easily perceived.

Although my background is in industrial design ( somehow related to architecture), this wonderful observation never came to me in that particular moment. Why?

I try to come out with a list to explain the reasons:

1. Maybe I am not good in design.
2. I am too “Design-Professional” and take it for granted that every floor should be parallel to the ground.
3. I am so surprised that this new point of view comes out.
4. I then recognized this idea, was almost persuaded, and start to think about the purpose of author, although I am still not sure this is Wright’s idea or not.
5. It is a process of inspiration. I might apply this “rule” in the future.

As a designer, I want to argue another similar example of the design process related to criticism, with my own past experience. Maybe it will be a start point for further discussion, or just a quick answer to Jeff’s curiosity about my thinking as a designer with past “proper” design education.

We talked about self-criticism in class. I have to admit that this kind of self reflection is not so easy and usually biased. Designers tend to explore every potential design solutions in a giving problem space. We can say that a designer change his temporary design decisions based on critical thinking and analysis, and it is the self criticism; however, those judgments are all based on his personal past experience and limited. Even when I purposely picky on my own stuff, I seldom turn my mediocre design ideas into brilliant ones through my own critics.

However, when a outsider (layperson in design, design master, or professor who teaches interaction culture) steps in and criticizes, designer starts to judge those critics. Not necessary change his solution, designer starts to think in a different way: bring in outsider’s experience, reasoning and critical thinking. This is my idea of inspiration during a design process.

I have to stop here, and maybe come out with another version of how a group of designers do teamwork and critic on their own project.

So, it’s been a big couple of weeks for me. at the last minute, on a wednesday with 5 working days remaining, my company decided to go to a big exhibition in Amsterdam. 49,000 people registered so potential audience of MANY times anything i’ve ever done before, and we had no media.  it had been relatively quiet up to that point, and things were, well, dragging is the wrong word, i had plenty to do, but itwas all in-house stuff, non urgent, and not really to be seen by the general public.

My immediate response was one of ‘ok, i CAN do this, but it’ll be tight.. ‘ i was not as right as i thought.

Initially i approached it logically, treated it as a new brief. what is the required media, IE what are the immediate things to prioritise, what cannot be left out? answer, some business cards, a cd label design, and some product posters. those things got pencilled in as first work order.

initially i found myself concerned more about the task ahead and it kinda clouded my vision. it may not seem a lot of work, but factor in this. each of the 100 cd’s was to be printed, one at a time, by hand in the little inkjet. the posters, were FAR bigger than i usully design for, and were to be printed on a rather geriatric 300dpi, slightly off calibrated plotter, so colour correction was a NIGHTMARE. plus there was a lot goign on that week, little artworkery jobs for me. i decided one particularly fruitless evening to work a bit at home, after hours. it really got me started on a roll, i finished the printed media and started to think about the media available to me at the show. mostly video screens, our demo rig is a veritable barrage of screens. if we can only hang 2 posters, why are we displaying outdated generic clips and old showreels on the screens? we had a dynamic advertising space, and we NEEDED to make it count.

we make digital signage software  and hardware with some really impressive features. i decided we needed product ads to go in the playlist, then started thinking about how we can really push our branding. i adapted some of my earlier designs for the product ads, then decided, we need motion graphics, we need video. unfortunately, up until this time i had done ONE, count it, ONE small simple video in after effects, and dabbled in premiere some 8 years ago. time for a crash course then!

the end result has given me SO many ideas for the branding. thankfully, while the logo isn’t particularly bold or inspiring, it happens to incorporate 4 colour blocks, red, yellow, green and blue. i decided on picking them out as colours and let the combination of colours speak for the branding.

by then end of the week, i got into a workflow with after effects, and started thinking. our software and hardware cn synch videos on multiple players across a network. this means, multiple screens, each attached to a different pc, playing in synch videos. i started working on idents that started out identical, then ended differently to show that it’s separate content being synched. then the boss threw me a curve ball, based on that, he wanted a car to pass from one side to the other of 4 adjacent screens, 4 different videos, 4 different pc’s. after some tinkering, i came up with an innovative solution to synchronising the clips so when the car left one screen, it entered another. i made one project, put the still image of the car on, animated it to move across the screen. i then copied the layer, including keyframes, pasted it on top, and moved it along the timeline so as the nose of the first one went off screen, the second one entered. i repeated this, and after a small amount of tinkering was ready. i switched layers on and off as required, rendered, repeated. in the end, i had two videos, perfectly seamlessly moving a car, and a plane from one side to the other of four screens, each it’s own clip on it’s own machine, even compensating for the gap between the screens where the edge of the monitor is. and the best part is, i can drop WHATEVER image i want into the clip with a FEW CLICKS  and it’s ready to go. i learned a lot about frame rates, about resolution and codecs, and i learned a basic but effective set of tools for making nice motion graphics. so not only did the excercise produce what the boss said is ‘the best media we’ve had to date, even including stuff we paid agencies for’ and spawn a bunch more ideas, but it taught me a new skill set, and gave me some really important pointers about designing moving graphics, like how long to make motions, how long to hold text on screen for legibility, and was a good excercise in designing for a limited size screen (about 19″) which is an interesting excercise in making the text readable but not too small, or not filling the screen and losing the space. i also learned a lot about larger format printing, and now i’m learning after effects, i’m like a kid with a new toy.

For all that, i’m still scared about the prospect of up to 49,000 strangers seeing my work… it’s new ground for me.

i must have made an impression though, because one of the chairmen of the entire conference, who’s an acquaintance/old colleague of my boss, came to my boss specifically and said ‘ look, our design people have not done this (a video slide show of the times of the talks being held, pic of the speaker, and synopsis) i notice you have a new designer, can you put something together? he sent me the slides, and i made it happen, even taking the initiative and making a nice intro based on the convention logo and a title, so people knew what the info was. this will be played on digital screens all over the conference centre.

i guess what i’m getting at, is that sometimes when you’re stale, all you need is the proper motivation, and a fresh brief, and it can get your creative juices flowing.. shit i needed a mop and bucket for mine, i was in danger of tripping the power with my creative juices this week, though i probably just looked like i was sweating profusely (which i was at times)

Earlier this year I posted on Disruption and the “mythic” technologies of education and my views about consistency and diversity when applied to learning, especially e-learning within universities.

That post was sparked by a presentation by Gardner Campbell. Of the many things I found striking was the video of Chris Dede using “eating, sleeping and bonding” as a framework to understand the diversity inherent in learning.

As it happens, I’m currently working on the “pedagogy” component of my thesis. In particular, I’m working on the section I’m calling “Learning theories, research and advice for pedagogues”. A key point I’m looking to make is that diversity is inherent in learning. Hence the connection to Dede’s metaphor/framework.

The main driver for this post is that I’ve found a publication (Dede, 2008) in which Dede writes about the metaphor/framework and expands beyond the bit I heard in the video. I know it has its issues, but you have to love Google Books, without it I would not have found this book chapter. Nor could I link you to the page on which the metaphor/framework is discussed (it starts under the heading “Reconceptualizing media as empowering diversity in learning”).

The following are some other quotes from the book chapter that I found useful for my purposes

from an instrumental perspective, the history of tool making shows that the best strategy is to have simultaneously available a variety of specialized tools, rather than a single device that attempts to accomplish everything…

No educational ICT is universally good; and the best way to invest in instructional technologies is an instrumental approach that analyzes the natures of the curriculum, students, and teachers to select the appropriate tools, applications, media and environments..

To progress, the field of instructional design must recognize that learning is a human activity quite diverse in its manifestations from person to person, and even from day to day. The emphasis can then shift to developing pedagogical media that provide many alternative ways of teaching, which learners select as they engage in their educational experiences

References

Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. J. Voogt and G. Knezek. New York, Springer: 43-59.

2207.Words of inestimable wisdom from the late Paul Rand, via Logo Design Love, in a nifty 3-and-a-half minute animated video:

Video speaks for itself. Any commentary from me would by surly in comparison.

Technorati Tags: graphic design, design, Paul Rand, logo design

Another early update today – off to the Crocodile Farm as an excursion with the boys so today’s a write off. However, progress has been good and the end is nigh for chapter 2 – at least in first draft.

What I’ve done

The aim for this week was to complete the pedagogy component. The component will have three sections: The centrality of the pedagogue (done); Learning theories, research and advice for pedagogues (about half done); and Lessons from Pedagogy for e-learning (most of the ideas in place – these are generally quick to get done).

What I’ll do in the next week

Two main aims for next week:

1. Complete the pedagogy section and get Chapter 2 all together.
2. Get started on chapter 5.