WEEKLY READING

Kristina Andersen, Danielle Wilde

I enjoyed this article as it suggested an interesting way in which we can develop thoughts and ideas to create technology in the future. Although the article itself was quite long and included quite a lot of technical words, I felt the good structure really helped me see the process in which the researchers went through to get results.

I like the concept of the article as it really encouraged people to think outside of the box. Although a lot of people have argued the process is not relevant to our field of work, I think it is. The items shown in this article were primarily physical objects, but that does not mean those of us working on the digital side of things cannot take inspiration from these things or develop these ideas. I really think this is a valuable way of thinking of ideas for the future.

Bill Gaver, John Bowers

I felt as if this article could have been more concise, nonetheless, I still found it very interesting. The structure really helped me understand the idea behind the article: how design can be used for research by having annotated portfolios.

I think the article was not just simply talking about the benefits of annotated portfolios, but trying to justify to the scientific community that designers can successfully do relevant research through their projects and that it has a valid place in both the scientific and design communities.

Overall, I completely agree with the statements made. In the article, it is said that every project is open to interpretation, but when annotations are made on a portfolio, it is easier for the designer to show the thought processes through the writing, therefore the project is less likely to be interpreted in a different way. I also agree with the point made that annotations bring a series of artifacts together a systematic body of work, as opposed to separate items.

Marian Dörk, Peter Bennett, Rosamund Davies

This was definitely my favourite article so far as it really bought up some valid points. I agree with what was said: there is a place in out society for “quick lookups” but what we lack is the space to embark on longer lasting information journeys where one can reflect on what has been discovered and then continue to ask more questions.

On the other hand, slower searching is not always needed, for example sometimes you only need to find the answer to one specific question. However I think is important there is a way we can still access a way to slow search when we want to use it.

Matthias Laschke, Marc Hassenzahl, Jan Brechmann, Eva Lenz, Marion Digel

I like this article as I felt it bought up some vary valid points which I agreed with. Firstly I felt the object “ReMind" was an extremely useful idea because it made the to-do list of the user tangible. Where people use calendars, especially on digital devices, there’s no confrontation: there’s nothing forcing the person to do the task. However with ReMind, the idea that if a number of tasks are not completed, something physically happens, it tackles the procrastination head-on with confrontation.

I felt the case-study with the woman was also very valuable. Not only did she get more tasks done whilst using the object, she began to think differently after using it. She admitted that although she felt she could cheat ReMind, she couldn’t cheat herself. This is a step in the right direction for a procrastinator as they realise no matter what you do, you will not get away with not doing the task.

Although the object has it’s uses, it also has a few faults. For example, the article says prioritisation is a form of procrastination as it is easy to de-prioratise a task you don’t want to do for something that is easier and quicker. Also, it is extremely easy for the user to move the puck back another day to avoid the task.

Overall the article was really well written, I enjoyed the subject matter and the points brought up.

Andrew Richardson

This has been my favourite article to date as I feel it is the most relevant. The article compared the use of computer programming to the practice of “traditional crafts” which I feel is very important as I often find people treat digital media separately to traditional crafts. Yes, of course they differ slightly. But like it was clearly stated in the article, both a craftsman and programmer need an extensive knowledge of their material and a deep understanding. Without that, it would be almost impossible to create something with meaning/importance.

The article also went through the differences between them, such as how errors with digital material can be quickly changed whereas traditional craft is less easy to correct, or how easy it is to copy material when on a digital platform, whereas anything physical is harder to duplicate.

To conclude, just because digital media isn’t a traditional craft does not mean we in the industry do not need a deep understating of our tools and materials as programming requires a disciplined and rigorous approach just like any of the more physical medias.

Usman Hacque

This has been my favourite article to date as I feel it is the most relevant. The article compared the use of computer programming to the practice of “traditional crafts” which I feel is very important as I often find people treat digital media separately to traditional crafts. Yes, of course they differ slightly. But like it was clearly stated in the article, both a craftsman and programmer need an extensive knowledge of their material and a deep understanding. Without that, it would be almost impossible to create something with meaning/importance.

The article also went through the differences between them, such as how errors with digital material can be quickly changed whereas traditional craft is less easy to correct, or how easy it is to copy material when on a digital platform, whereas anything physical is harder to duplicate.

To conclude, just because digital media isn’t a traditional craft does not mean we in the industry do not need a deep understating of our tools and materials as programming requires a disciplined and rigorous approach just like any of the more physical medias.

David G. Hendry, Batya Friedman

Although I agreed with the concept behind this article, I felt it was difficult to read.

I think attempting to broaden and deepen the student's conceptual understanding of design perspectives, is a good idea. It means that although they are from different backgrounds, they all have a foundation understanding of what it means to be a designer. I liked how in depth the article went into each design perspective, and how detailed the course was. I also found it really interesting that throughout the course they started seeing results quickly, for example the students started talking and writing like designers.

However I felt the article was extremely long and at some points I found myself not concentrating on what was being said, meaning I had to go back and re-read certain bits. But overall I thought it was interesting and I would definitely be interested in looking more into courses like these and how they benefit students.