Skip to main content
Log in

Is informatics a design discipline?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Poiesis & Praxis

Abstract

The article discusses the theory and practice of software development in the light of design theory. It tries to show that the design process cannot be forced into a predefined operational sequence. To underline this, the history of design methods is retraced, showing that such approaches were abolished not only in practice, but also the theory of design. The essay then discusses the cognitive framework of contemporary design theory and closes with the proposal that informatics should redefine itself as a design discipline in order to tackle the problems of interaction design.

Zusammenfassung

Der Text diskutiert die Theorie und Praxis der Softwareentwicklung im Lichte aktueller Designtheorie. Es wird zu zeigen versucht, dass sich der Designprozess der operationalen Formalisierung entzieht. Dazu wird die Geschichte der Designmethoden nachgezeichnet, die zeigt, dass solche Ansätze nicht nur in der Praxis, sondern auch in der Theorie gescheitert sind. Der Aufsatz diskutiert dann die kognitiven Rahmenbedingungen aktueller Designtheorien und schließt mit dem Vorschlag, dass sich die Informatik als Designdisziplin verstehen muss, um die Probleme des Interaktionsdesign wirklich lösen zu können.

Résumé

Ce texte s’interroge sur la théorie et la pratique du développement de logiciels à la lumière de la théorie de design actuelle. Il tente de montrer que le processus de design se soustrait à la formalisation opérationnelle. L’histoire des méthodes conceptuelles est par ailleurs retracée, qui montre que de telles démarches n’ont pas seulement échoué dans la pratique, mais aussi en théorie. L’article se penche sur les conditions cadres cognitives des théories de design d’aujourd’hui et s’achève sur la proposition selon laquelle l’informatique doit s’entendre comme discipline de design pour pouvoir véritablement résoudre les problèmes du design d’interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Nevertheless, it would be very interesting to see more discussion of the design of interactive systems. Architecture has developed a culture of critique and discussion about their artefacts. It is high time that informatics followed this lead and started a broad debate about interactive artefacts produced by its agents.

  2. Unfortunately, there is a huge lack in design instruments that fit the sketching of interaction. The Swedish interaction design researcher Jonas Löwgren and the Author of this article have started a website (Löwgren et al. 2006) to collect examples, best practices, research questions etc. on interaction sketching.

  3. “Beyond Calculation” is the title of a collection of essays edited by Peter Denning and Robert Metcalfe. One of the essays, Terry Winograds “The Design of Interaction” [23], coined the term “Interaction Architect”.

References

  • Alexander C (1963) The determination of components for an Indian village. In: Jones CJ, Thornley D (eds) Conference on design methods. Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander C (1971) The state of the art in design methods. In: DMG Newsletters 5(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan R (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. In: Design issues, vol 8(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Buxton B (2006) What sketches (and prototypes) are and are not. Workshop at CHI06, 22–27

    Google Scholar 

  • April, Montreal, Canada. Position Paper at www.kid.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp/chi06-sketch-ws/final-position-papers/Buxton-SketchesPrototypes.pdf

  • Reproduction of a slide used by William Buxton in a talk (2004) The role of design in software product development, KMDI, Toronto, April 22

  • Cross N (1984) Developments in design methodology

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross N (2001) Design/science/research: developing a discipline. Keynote on the 5th Asian design conference—international symposium on design science, 11–13 October, Seoul National University

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1938) Logic: the theory of inquiry. H. Holt and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd C (1992) Software development as reality construction. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gasparski WW (1990) On the general theory (praxeology) of design. In: design methods and theories, 24(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gedenryd H (1998) How designers work—making sense of authentic cognitive activities. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University Cognitive Science http://www.lucs.lu.se/People/Henrik.Gedenryd/HowdesignersWork/index.html

  • Grant D (1979) Design methodology and design methods. In: design methods and theories. J DMG, 13(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewett TT, Baecker R, Card SK, Carey T, Gasen JB, Mantei M, Perlman G, Strong G, Verplank W (1992, 1996) ACM SIGCHI curricula for human–computer interaction. Report of the ACM special interest group on computer–human interaction (SIGCHI) curriculum development Group. http://www.acm.org/sigchi/cdg

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones JC (1970) Design methods. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapor M (1990) A software design manifesto. In: Winograd T, with Bennett J, De Young L, Hartfield B (1996) Bringing design to software, Addison-Wesley, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson B (19801, 19973) How designer think. Butterworth Architecture, London

  • Lawson B (1994) Design in Mind. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Löwgren J, Purgathofer P (2006, ongoing) sketching for interaction, Weblog at twoday.tuwien.ac.at/interactionsketching

  • Naur P, Randell B (eds) (1969) Software engineering: report of a conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee, Garmisch, Germany, 7–11 October 1968, Brussels, Scientific Affairs Division, NATO

  • Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner. Bibliography review 63, MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells D (2003) Extreme programming. http://www.extremeprogramming.org

  • Winograd T (1997) The design of interaction. In: Denning PJ, Metcalfe RM (eds) Beyond calculation: the next fifty years of computing, Copernicus Springer, New York

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Purgathofer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Purgathofer, P. Is informatics a design discipline?. Poiesis Prax 4, 303–314 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-006-0029-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-006-0029-0

Keywords

Navigation