Design Systems Thinking

Design Systems Thinking Post 4

While researching for the capstone project I have been working on for the past quarter, I found many non-profits which work with people who have anxiety disorder, or high stress levels. However, these non-profits are focused on categorizing stress-like disorders, rather than people who may not necessarily be diagnosed with anything, but instead could use help and reminders in their daily lives to overcome stress. I have learned through many articles and design-thinking reading in general though, that finding different purposes to fit specific needs is nothing to stray away from even if it may seem more abstract in the beginning stages. Through interviews, research, and cycles of several iterations consisting of ideas to help put this concept in the most beneficial context, you are able to find solutions you never thought would work so well.

There is a huge part of the design community that is passionate social change, and this in itself gives us as designers the opportunity to take these thoughts we have and share them with others who have the same desire to use visual (or audible or tactile) designs to change and shape people in a positive direction. The book I created for this project includes four sections (mind, move, food, and friends), which were decided upon after conducting interviews about what helps those who are stressed. This final product though, could have been pushed and changed and been even better with a team of other creative minds. People like those at desigNYC or DIY which both combine design and helping others, ideas which cater towards the greater good of people and communities, are places where helping others through creativity happens everyday. “desigNYC is a nonprofit 501©(3) that aims to improve the lives of New Yorkers through the power of design by connecting designers with nonprofits serving the public good, and then revealing the impact of those partnerships through great storytelling.” DIY consists of a toolkit which is designed “for development practitioners to invent, adopt or adapt ideas that can deliver best results.”

http://diytoolkit.org

http://www.aiga.org/designforgood-get-involved/

http://www.designyc.org

Design Systems Thinking Post 3

Though there have been several articles I have read this quarter that are formed around design research, the proposal written by Meredith Davis, the Director of Graduate Programs in Graphic Design at NC State University, talks about the research process as it relates to the design education system, rather than just the overall research system. I have seen many different circle-like plans and how-to’s that are formed around explaining what to do when approaching the research process before or during making design decisions. However, the thought training that is needed in order to execute these sort of processes is not always just picked up in the work force, nor is it directly taught alongside learning the fundamentals of graphic design while in school. The importance of being able to configure how exactly your audience is going to use a final design, and what benefits the look or content can do on it’s own are critical when approaching the design world. Davis makes a strong and interesting point when she explains the difference between research “focuse[d] on the subject matter of their design” compared to “the characteristics of users or context.” This hit home not because of the way my professors have guided my learning in design school, but because of the way I have thought of design research as a tool to look at the background of my subject instead of the use of the product at hand. Whether it be the instinct my fellow classmates and I have about education or not, this research distinction between background and use is something that should be clarified in order to move forward with more strategic and beneficial designs. The final outcome of graphic look will continue to be irrelevant unless the user and purpose is taken into consideration and helps to fully shape the way the project is formed. The easiest way I could picture this difference is as it relates to a Homelessness project my classmates and I worked on last quarter in our information design class. We spent weeks gathering background information, statistics, interviews, etc. but our final output was always going to be the same: two posters, and a motion graphic video. Could some other end product been more successful? The research testing for what the outcome would be could have taken just as long if not longer than the background research. But the end product or design as far as how helpful it could be in making a difference in the community, could have been worth that extra testing.

Davis, Meredith. “Building a Culture of Design Research.” SEGD (2012). SEGD. SEGD Academic Summit. Web. 1 Jan. 2015. <https://segd.org/building-culture-design-research-0>.

Research_book_presentation_v1

Design Systems Thinking Post 2

Noble and Bestley’s introduction to design research methodologies was an interesting read in which the process for designing something that visually communicates a message, is put into a step by step ideation of how to go about finding and creating the most successful final piece. The first instinct for most designers or people in general, is to eliminate and find the exact end result ideas as soon as possible. However, in a successful process, the practical problem that is trying to be solved needs to be thought of in a broader sense. Once the problem/idea is addressed, you can then generate research questions, which will define the research methodology to find the research outcome, which then solves the original problem. Through this cycle of research, relating the content to competing messages is important so that if there is a visual language that has already been created for your particular audience it can either be followed or recognized so that a new visual language is created. Cost and time restrictions are also an important aspect to look at before hand, and this may play a part in the scheduling for experimentation. This brings us to the section on experimentation and how to go about investigating. Context-definition is a model that purely investigates a field of study, where as context-experiement starts with investigating a field, but then uses experimentation to take the redefinition of a project into a more particular focus, sooner. Both of these methods should help find the visual route and end product which is most “effective, useful or engaging” for the purpose. To do this, social analysis’ (whether they are measured by criteria/ positive and negative number results or the designer using critical self-reflection), is critical.

What interested me at the end of this reading, was the section on mind mapping and the case study reflection titled “I love you.” When addressing an audience of any kind, no matter what the research guides you toward specifically, there is an embedded aspect of human kind that responds to the way maps convey direction and sense-making, and the way symbols create different visual meanings based on their shape, color, size, etc. These visual variables studied by designers, are what create a successful visual communication, if done correctly. The research is at the core, and the background is what develops these visual outcomes, but in the end, basic human understanding of symbolism and mapping is how the project’s successful execution is created.

Noble, Ian, and Russell Bestley. “Methods.” Visual Research: An Introduction to Research Methodologies in Graphic Design. Lausanne: AVA, 2005. N. pag. Print.

Interesting way to use both symbols and mapping to show the creative process.

Design Systems Thinking Post 1

After reading Brown and Wyatt’s Design Thinking for Social Innovation, I quickly connected this idea of thinking through the user’s actual needs first, as a similar process to what I have been using to come to the final ideation of the last few projects I have worked on in class. Whether it is information design, an app, or some sort of program used for people to obtain clean water in a foreign country, thinking about the process of the user is a vital aspect. It is easy for designers to jump into not only visual aspects of a design or product, but even the overall idea because of assumptions and habit. However, once the users process is taken into consideration, this is when the product obtains it’s highest amount of usage. This article and its explanation of the “design thinking” process, is reflected currently in a program my classmates and I are testing out for our capstone class. Helium, which is currently in beta, is a program that allows professionals and students alike to make decisions and have conversations based off of poles, ideas, collaborations, and charts, all in one place. Though I have not used it extensively, our class is currently testing it for a project. As the “users” in Artefact’s design thinking process, we are responsible for sending our feedback of this product in order to improve it’s user experience. Our feedback is a direct reflection of how design thinking, even in the prototype stage, leaves room for constant improvement and consideration of the user. Good products, no matter how beautiful they look, only truly last if the user is able to seamlessly use them in a productive and uninterrupted manner. IDEO, who created this “design thinking” process explains this method as something which is “about empathy for people and for disciplines beyond one’s own. It tends to be expressed as openness, curiosity, optimism, a tendency toward learning through doing, and experimentation.” (Design Thinking For Social Innovation, 34).

This informational design piece below, by Curiousity Design Research, though not completely parallel with the steps described in IDEO’s Human Centered Design Toolkit, allows us to quickly grasp this detailed and thoughtful mechanism of design.

Brown, Tim, and Jocelynn Wyatt. “Design Thinking For Social Innovation.” Stanford Social Innovation Review (2010): 31-35. Print.