Today we did an exercise with so called conversation pieces. Together with my fellow student Barend Onneweer we did an assignment about valuing valued objects. And this assignment was in itself a conversation piece created by Irma Földényi. Again, it was much fun to do, very insightful, and I need to learn how to use this for my own research.
I visited this wonderful workshop in which Andrea Stultiens told us about a project she’s been working on. In this project she asked artists in Uganda to make their own representation of this photo. This resulted in some incredible works of art. Some of those works were easy to misplace with our western background — for instance, I saw influences of Picasso, where there really were none — and others were a bit harder to understand without context. But luckily for us we had Andrea who gave us this context.
There are things we need to use. We really have to. Things like tax return forms which are mandatory. Or things like webshops. Not mandatory, but often necessary. I wouldn’t know where to buy Sugru if I couldn’t order it online, for instance. For more and more things we depend on the web. Good usability and accessibility is important, especially in these cases. But this is not always the case. In this document I’m trying to figure out the different aspects of why people need to use things. It has a similar structure as the one I wrote about why people want to create stuff, which is from a maker’s perspective. Here I’ll look at things from a user’s view.
Users are important
Sometimes very simple design decisions have unforeseen complex consequences. For instance, it could make sense to design an on/of switch, in order to toggle certain settings on a website. Designing such a control visually can be done within a minute.
Then what’s the problem?
If I want to improve the awareness of accessibility and inclusive design, I think one of the things I need to do is trying to get an understanding of the different reasons why different designers want to make things. Why did they choose a creative job, instead of whatever else there is. Why did they decide to design stuff for others, and not, for instance, decide to become an artist?
Today I created conversation pieces that emulate a disability. At first I tried to manipulate my Mac: every few seconds the tracking speed was toggled between super fast and super slow. And the scroll direction toggled between natural and old fashioned. The people who tried to control my Mac didn’t feel disabled though. They simply thought my Mac was broken.
So what did you create?
For the course Critical Reading I was asked to read five articles about Critical Design critically. During class we analysed these articles further and discussed them. Together with two fellow students we discussed three articles in detail, where we each tried to defend the author’s position. Now, the next assignment is this blog post you are reading right now in which I’ll try to explain my own opinion on Critical Design. In short: I don’t think it should be the only school of design.
Yesterday I followed a course in critical reading. It’s a method for not just reading texts with a critical mindset, but it helps you placing the text in a wider context. It’s about analysing a text to find out what it says, what it does, and what it means. At the beginning of the course I thought this was something I always do. During class I found out that this is not really true.
Last week I tried to publish an overview of my research as an interactive outline. This does not work as well as it should. To be honest, it’s almost impossible to use: It’s hard to see connections, it’s hard to spot the complex areas, it’s hard to see patterns. Hanneke Briër, one of my teachers rightly asked me to make a visual version of this map.
What does it look like?
Yesterday Niko Spelbrink explained to me why people want to create award winning stuff that’s not necessarily useful. There’s even a name for this kind of
design: it’s called striping. It stands for the extra stripes on your BMW.
Do we still have stripes?
This week I gained some very interesting new insights into accessibility. I learned two things I didn’t know yet. The first one is incredible: It turns out that (some) blind people can see. They have no eyes, yet they can see well enough to ride a bike. And according to these people, the reason why blind people can’t see has a cultural reason. They can’t see because we’re over protective, and because we won’t let them use echo location. It’s the most incredible podcast I’ve heard in a long time.
What’s the other thing?
Last week I finally recorded a podcast with my friend Stephen Hay. Like all my podcasts so far, this one’s about quality as well. Unlike most of the other episodes, this one’s in English though. So if you don’t know Dutch, and if you want to listen to the smart things Stephen has to say, you’re in luck.
No need to learn Dutch