China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
From product design to relational design
Published in Jonathan Chapman, Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Product Design, 2017
I define metadesign as an emerging framework of practice that will enable designers to change, or to create, behavioural paradigms. This is an ambitious task that cannot be achieved by what we currently understand as ‘design’. Paradigms are complex, self-perpetuating systems that are co-sustained by habitual processes that are part of the prevailing social, cultural, economic, aesthetic, psychological, technological and linguistic milieu. As these factors reinforce one another, they fiercely resist change unless they can be addressed in a comprehensive and joined-up way. As this also means identifying simultaneous points of intervention we must devise more comprehensive and radical agenda that includes team-based practices. The ultimate aim of metadesign is to bring about a more ecological and ‘synergy-oriented’ society to replace the existing ‘product-oriented’ world of consumption and profits.
End-User Development Landscape: A Tour into Tailoring Software Research
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2023
Claiton Marques Correa, Milene Selbach Silveira
We characterized the second trend as EUD frameworks. The studies within this trend emphasize the discussion and development of frameworks to empower end-users (called owners of the problem) in charge. Two clusters belong to this trend, and it should be noted that Gerhard Fischer authored all those studies. Indeed, he is responsible for the meta-design framework (Fischer et al., 2004). Meta-design is a practical approach to bringing EUD activities to the real world, i.e., development ground. Meta-design characterizes goals, techniques, and processes to allow the user to act as a designer. Although the studies were divided into two different clusters, they share meta-design as a common topic for advancing their research from different perspectives. Putting the studies in chronological order (Fischer, 2010; Fischer et al., 2004; 2009; Fischer & Giaccardi, 2006), we can verify the evolution line for keeping track of contemporary technologies, such as the ones brought by the Web 2.0 concept. System co-evolution, evolutionary growth, and cultures of participation are some topics emerging from these studies.
Placemaking as co-creation – professional roles and attitudes in practice
Published in CoDesign, 2019
The programming of space is described as the central task, and this can, according to metadesign theory (A.Telier/Binder et al. 2011), occur during the initial design phase as well as during the use of a place. Metadesign embraces the activities of professional designers as well as future users, and every use situation is considered a potential design situation, a possibility for design-in-use (ibid., 171). This layering of design activities over time can be conceptualised as infrastructuring, which denotes setting up long-term structures for user adaptation, appropriation, and redesign of a place or object (see e.g. A.Telier/Binder et al. 2011; Karasti 2014; Marttila and Botero 2016). Design experts are then, rather than creating places and objects ready for use, shaping solutions that allow former-users to engage directly in the design and production of places and objects. (Seravalli 2014, 107)
From Consensus to Innovation. Evolving Towards Crowd-based User-Centered Design
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2020
Tiziana Catarci, Andrea Marrella, Giuseppe Santucci, Mahmoud Sharf, Andrea Vitaletti, Loredana Di Lucchio, Lorenzo Imbesi, Viktor Malakuczi
As opposed to the demiurgic idea of the designer as the sole source of creativity, the design profession is increasingly accommodating the concept of prosumers, the mixture of producers and consumers, as coined by (Toffler & Alvin, 1981) to mark the new actor who is motivated to contribute to the design process of their goods. The prosumer dealing with service society and digital networks is opening a hybrid economy, halfway between capitalism and the collaborative commons (Rifkin, 2000, 2011, 2014): transportation, time, knowledge, even tools can be produced, shared, and customized. In order to achieve a consensus between the designer’s project and the user’s preferences, de Mul, 2011 suggests that the designer “should become a metadesigner who designs a multidimensional design space that provides a user-friendly interface, enabling the user to become a co-designer, even when this user has no designer experience or no time to gain such experience through trial and error.” While user diversity can be considered an important resource for innovative products with high emotional value, Cruickshank, 2014 also notes that providing adequate guidance for the user participation is crucial: “with too much structure the outcomes are controlled by the hidden hand of the designer and people are simply selecting from a range of options laid down by them. Too little support and many potential creative contributions are lost because starting from a blank page is difficult, even for experienced designers.” Thus, meta-design can be perceived as a design for designers (Fischer & Giaccardi, 2006). Based on the assumption that not all future uses and users can be foreseen at design time, meta-design creates open systems which can be modified by the users who act as co-designers at use time.