Design process: Research and analyses

These are some basic articles about information design approaches. More general books, such as ‘Framing’ by Kees Dorst fall into this group as well.

Peavey E, Wyst KB Vander. (2017) ‘Evidence-Based Design and Research-Informed Design: What’s the Difference? Conceptual Definitions and Comparative Analysis’. Health Environments Research & Design Journal. 10(5), 1-14. [DOI].

Main point: A discussion about evidence based design and research-informed design. The problem designers have is not in using evidence to inform their design decisions, but rather it is with the term EBD, its misuse, and the rigidity with which its process is perceived. Suggestions can exist, but a one-size-fits-all solution that complements the client, culture, climate, building type, occupants, and financial constraints and is not something EBD or RID can provide.
Comment:

Crilly N, Good D, Matravers D,, Clarkson PJ. (2008) ‘Design as communication: exploring the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation’. Design Studies. 29, 425-457. [DOI].

Main point: A description of the relation between intentions of designers and interpretations of consumers, based on the idea that design can be seen as a communication process.
Comment: The article provides a clear view of the different perspectives of makers/designers, and people/consumers.

Sless D. (2013) ‘Theory for practice Principles of practical information design’. Melbourne: Communication Research Institute. [Website].

The contents of this publications were originally presented at the International Institute for Information Design Vision Plus 3 Conference in Schwartzenberg July 1997.
Main point: David Sless introduces five Ps for information design: politics, position, parsimony, politeness, and performance. The main question is: ‘What do you want people to do with the information you are giving them?’
Comment: The question focuses on action, not on attitudes, behaviour, processing information, or understanding.

Sless D. (2003) ‘Collaborative processes and politics in complex information design’. Chapter 3 in: Albers MJ (Ed): ‘Content and Complexity: information Design in Technical Communication’. [Website].

Adapted from a Keynote address given at the Co-Designing Conference, Coventry University, UK, 13 September 2000.
Main point: The chapter deals with two political issues: representing unrepresented constituencies, and shifting problem boundaries.
Comment: The article outlines the stages of an information design project.

Andersson C, Pettersson R. (2004) ‘How can a design process and a scientific process in information design collaborate?’. Fourth International seminar and workshop ‘Management of design complexity’. . 7-9 October 2004, Zielona Gora. [ResearchGate].

Main point: Research in Information Design depends on our definition of science, the attitude we have, on what theories we base our knowledge, how we evaluate the results and our opinion of what knowledge is.
Comment: Interesting discussion about the relation between research and practice in information design.

Reid J, Rout M. (2020) ‘Developing sustainability indicators – The need for radical transparency’. Ecological Indicators. 110, 105941. [DOI].

Main point: Sustainability indicators precludes debate concerning the implicit values that guide indicator development and selection; fails to recognise areas where SIs cannot be developed for measuring crucial socioecological functions; and reduces complexity and embellishes certainty. Radical transparency is required.
Comment: In the discussions about the information that needs to appear on labels, it seems essential to keep the broader aims in mind before quantifiable indicators are set.