We have developed it as a experience into the excitement and mystery of discovering the ancient stories of our ancestors. Visitors will dig out the mound themselves, with real archeologist’s tools from the museum, in sand and find the items that was burried witht hte Skrydstrup Woman more than 3000 years ago. The items are all digitally projected into the sand and one item – for instance her golden earring – is excavated it will be moved onto a large screen where several different kinds of stories about the item is displayed. The “archaeologists” must then discuss and decide which of the stories they want to choose for their own collection about the Skrydstrup Woman. In that way we activate the imaginative aspect of archaeology and show that our past is also something we decide when we find it – something that is pliable to interpretation.

I hope you will go see the installation. It will be part of the permanent exhibition at The Haderslev Archaeologic Museum.

Share/Bookmark

Design is the conscious exploring of potential futures

This definition actually contains some of the most important aspects of design, in my humble opinion. Compared to Herbert Simon’s “Design is devising courses of action aimed at changing current situations into preferred ones” it contains the exploratory aspect of design which I think is important. Both definitions point to the fact that design is an activity focused on the future. “Devising courses of action aimed at (…)” means that the actual activity of designing means to work on a future plan that will achieve a particular outcome. In my definition I try to emphasize that design is not only to lay plans, but entails the testing of these plans, somehow. Simon’s definition also contains, what he has later been heavily criticized for, the notion that design is problem solving. I don’t agree with this since there many designers designing e.g. clothes who are not faced with an actual problem, except if we define yet another trendy top as a problem with a more desired situation – namely a new successful collection for the manufacturer.

Neither of these definitions, however, have a built in exclamation that design has to have an aesthetic edge. This is because there are so many people working with design from various perspectives, and a good definition needs to be able to contain these perspectives. People often want to use a definition of such a field to exclude others from the field. That’s OK. But in the specific situation of designI think I think it is counterproductive.

“Design is the conscious exploring of potential futures” also tries to convey what is known as “the imaginary leap” or “the design gap”. Design is an activity taking place in present but directed towards the future. At the same time design is taking place in the future and directed towards moving a potential future towards the present. Looks like this.

The big dark arrow is design process in present time. At some point the designers needs to imagine a possible future – no more research or asking users will grant the design idea. This means that the designer takes an imaginary leap and jumps the gap into the future. The design work from here is then to reconnect this future vision with reality in the present. This might involve sketching, prototyping, calculating models etc.

What do you think?

Share/Bookmark

The Kitchen is a research group doing both screen-based stuff like the ZUI prezi and physical interactive installations and prototypes – check out the ‘projects’-section:

Kitchen Budapest, opened in June 2007, is a new media lab for young researchers who are interested in the convergence of mobile communication, online communities and urban space and are passionate about creating experimental projects in cross-disciplinary teams.

It is super cool to see new places emerging to push the edges of this design and HCI field.

Share/Bookmark

This search for the next frontier issues is also symptomatic for HCI in a wider sense. As a scientific field, HCI has entered into a steady normal science sphere. We find problems, we solve them, they lead to new similar but a little different problems, which we then consequently solve too. This is great.

Except for the fact that science is also about making a name for yourself and become the most referenced author within a certain sub-field, which explains all the frameworks and foundations for this-and-that with a little twist. Most researchers know that the best way to rise above your peers and become an important node in the web-of-references, is to grasp the new and most important issue first and best. I do it too whenever I can.

So we all look for this next big thing. Which is great because it continually pushes the edge of the scientific field for the greater good.

But the thing with paradigmatic shifts is that one cannot really see the next paradigm from within the current. One’s normal-science thinking has to shatter somewhat, for you to be able to see the next. Otherwise we will only see incremental upgrades of our existing problems into new and a little more complex ones.

So the question is, I guess, whether we actually need a paradigmatic shift, or we still have quite enough work to do within the current state of affairs.

I am all for looking for the next big thing. Or actually I have already found it. And next week I will post what I think would be the most interesting next big issue to research. The working title for my next research center is IPCIAG.

Stay tuned.

Share/Bookmark