Design Thoughts

Solving the problem of what is the real world. And what we as humans try to do is depict the real world in the snapshots of our own control For eg. When it comes to science what we are doing is nothing but depicting what the real world does in our own control. May it be films or art or sound or music it all looks like a predefined control of humans over what the real world already exists. So if every act of humans can be linked back to the real world then how would you define the existence of technology in the real world. How can we relate technology back to the real world how can we say we are trying to control the real world with technology? Technology is stated as a expression of science. When from what we find in science we implement to control our everyday lives we say it is technology. When as humans we cannot do a particular thing and can do it using this particular thing we call it technology. So it is also a sort of control over the real world. We as humans are control freaks

In our conscios observations we observe many things in the real world. We make deductions or meanings of what we observe. But when it comes to prove the world these new meanings and deductions it becomes difficult unless and untill we state the majority of numbers. For eg. if we see that when it comes to proofs of any real thing we either prove it by numbers or statistics or we prove it using eternal proofs of others to get generalized patterns. In case of general acceptance we prove things using statistics or general vote. But at times a simple statement bsed on the logical statements that exist already helps in building over our own deductions with the support of the existing deductions. For example if there is a bridge to be built the engineer uses an existing strong obsejct to support the bridge. he may use the land or the mountains and put his pillars inside it to make those pillars stable. But then waht matters is that once these pillars are stable on the dependency of other stab

As designers i belive we need to detail out design to the most detailed level that it can be. Understanding domans of both the imaginery and the real can allow the existence of a design in the real world. I asked myself a simple question today " Why do we design?" To make a change possible. To make what we think is possible...real. To see it work. To define the rules. If that is the case, then why do we limit ourselves to just ideating a patricular design solution and simply leaving it at prototype stage. Why dont we take the extra efforts to actually make it realize? In the information domain there is a general tendency of keeping our hands off when the question "how will it be possible?" comes in to picture. I belive designing needs to bridge the gap of just visualizing to visualizing in detail. We as designers have the imagination of connecting cross domains across fields to bring about the possiblity of NEW. But this possiblitiy of new is possible only if we pus

Realization by knowledge v/s realization by experience are two aspects of human approach. All knowledge that exists in real world is generally generated by the humans and defined by humans by observing what exists in nature and beyond. But the domain of abstract i.e. that which is beyond what exists is always interesting. So the mild diversion between what exists and what can exist depends on what we think and how we think about it. So is all knowledge that exists wrong? I believe and have experienced it myself that simultaneous thinking does exist. When we say that a particular entity can generate a thought the same thought can exist or may have been thought over. So why then is creativity considered beyond what exists always. Cant innovation by looking at a new perspective of the existing change the way the world sees itself? Knowledge that exists and knowledge that goes beyond existence should be equally balanced. An individual that says existing knowledge is of no concern to reali

Technology tries to emulate what nature does seamlessly........science finds patterns of nature using observations by asking the question how? and why? each of these answers if found science names them with particular names...it proves the observation using...mathematics which can be consdered as a fixed language which allows science to state what it observes and create a bigger pattern....science gives each pattern a name. Technology uses these proved observations to emulate nature....this emulation of the nature may or may not be in favor of the human beings.....but either ways it brings about a change in the society or nature of things.....so its like evolving from recreating.... Creationism comes into picture here that apart from pure observation and stating the way in which we apply makes a difference....We say we create when we do something new innovative and by large something that has never been done before....such an attempt along with the observation of science breaks boundr

Are constraints simply a necessary evil, or do they perform some positive function for users? In idle fantasies about interactive systems people tend to imagine magical spaces where they can and do whatever they wish- like gods. Even if such a system were technically feasible the experience of using it might more like an existential nightmare than a dream of freedom. When a person is asked to be creative with no direction or constraints whatever, the result is often a sense of powerlessness or even complete paralysis of the imagination. Constraints provide the security net that enables people to take imaginative leaps.... ----Interface as mimesis (Brenda K Laurel) [User Centered System Design]