[IxDA Discuss] Anti Read: Want to build the next ?hot? technology?

[James Leftwich, IDSA]

Your point is taken, however I don't think "designing systems"  
completely captures and describes the notion that "meta-design" does,  
though I'll gladly admit it's a term pulled out rather quickly for  
differentiation purposes.

The difference, as I see it, is that there are many kinds of  
"systems," in which there will never be additional or sub-design or  
build-out or extension occurring.  So just the plain phrase, "design  
of systems," is broader than what I was getting at.

The difference is in designing a system in which it's known from the  
beginning that there will be sub-levels of design, extension, and  
build-out done within the established (and future) componentry,  
interrelationship rules, syntax, structural patterns, etc..

I guess it could maybe be better called Super-design (which would  
work better with sub-design), and is a more system-oriented term.

Jim

James Leftwich, IDSA
Orbit Interaction
Palo Alto, CA
www.orbitnet.com



On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Mark Schraad wrote:

> So in simple and existing terms, we're are talking about designing  
> things or designing systems right?
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 05, 2007, at 05:03PM, "James Leftwich,  
> IDSA" <jleft at orbitnet.com> wrote:
>> Faith's take on Roger Costello's short blog entry is completely and
>> 100% spot on.  It's exactly what he's trying to get at, but
>> unfortunately doesn't take the time or amount of words to clarify.
>> It's a rather complex issue - "metadesign" or the design of systems
>> or component sets within which sub-embodiments and/or extensions will
>> be further designed.
>>
>> Meta-design:
>>
>> Design of html/the Web
>> Design of Blogger or Wordpress or Myspace or
>> Design of the Second Life or World of Warcraft virtual worlds
>> Design of an OS GUI framework and interaction pattern rule base
>>
>> Design:
>>
>> Design of a website
>> Design of an individual blog or soc net page
>> Design of a SL or WOW place, building, character, or behavior, etc..
>> Design of an application for a particular OS
>>
>> Most of the design in the world occurs at the design level, not the
>> meta-design level.  But it's true that efforts in meta-design lead to
>> the opening up of entire worlds of opportunity to do sub-level design
>> and evolution.  That's what he's saying, and it's completely true.
>>
>> This same thing has been pointed out numerous times in the past.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> James Leftwich, IDSA
>> Orbit Interaction
>> Palo Alto, CA
>> www.orbitnet.com
>>
>>
>>
>>>  From: "Jarod Tang" <jarod.tang at gmail.com>
>>>  Date: September 5, 2007 6:54:31 AM PDT
>>>  To: "Faith Peterson" <f.a.peterson at gmail.com>
>>>  Cc: discuss at ixda.org
>>>  Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Anti Read: Want to build the next
>> ?hot? technology?
>>>  Design it so that it enables complexity.
>>>
>>>
>>>  agree with your analyze. still doubt if this is enough misleading:
>>>
>>>  "I asked a very bright colleague, "What are technologies that
>> survive?" He
>>>  responded, "Those technologies that enable
>> complexity." [Complexity is the
>>>  ability of simple things to be composed to create complex things]"
>>>
>>>  for e.g. , there complex enough technology such as A.I. , which
>> as we know
>>>  is almost waste of research and application energy.
>>>
>>>  Cheers
>>>  -- Jarod
>>>
>>>  On 9/5/07, Faith Peterson <f.a.peterson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Another take on that post is that it merely states the obvious.
>> He's not
>>>  saying make your app complex. He's talking about combining
>> simpler objects
>>>  into composites.
>>>
>>>  Examples: apps that make it possible for users to combine simple
>> objects
>>>  like buttons, input boxes, and so forth to create GUIs. Enabling
>> users to
>>>  combine characters and formatting instructions to create documents.
>>>  Enabling
>>>  Web users to combine articles, comments, and open editing to
>> synthesize
>>>  information. Enabling real-world social network members/
>> organizers to
>>>  create
>>>  online networks (a la Ning, although I doubt anyone would hold up
>> Ning as
>>>  an
>>>  example of good design - it's only an example of enabling users
>> to create
>>>  something complex out of simpler things).
>>>
>>>  Non-software examples - combine images, words, and music to
>> create films.
>>>  Combine ingredients to create food using a food processor, a
>> technology
>>>  that
>>>  changed the way millions of people work in the kitchen. Combine
>> fthe means
>>>  to cook foods that need precisely controlled head sources, those
>> that need
>>>  constant, uniform heat (and make it possible to cook things in this
>>>  category
>>>  that are different sizes, or require different temperatures),
>> those that
>>>  benefit from speed/steam, along with the means to cook all of
>> these at the
>>>  time of one's own choosing and a simple cleanup - do all that and
>> you have
>>>  the modern dual-power, dual-oven self-cleaning range with split
>> oven racks
>>>  and dedicated simmer/high heat burners.
>>>
>>>  That's not counter-design, it's what makes design necessary.
>>>
>>>  My .02.
>>>
>>>  -Faith
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  Faith Peterson
>>>  f.a.peterson at gmail.com
>>>  Schaumburg, IL
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 9/5/07, Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Want to build the next "hot" technology? Design it so that it
>> enables
>>>  complexity.<
>>>
>>>  http://rogercostello.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/want-to-build-the-
>> next-hot-technology-design-it-so-that-it-enables-complexity/
>>>
>>>  should say, this article is quite a anti experience to read, too
>>>  abstract
>>>  but you'll see some real example of it. such as lovely vista.
>>>  fully disagree with it.
>>>
>>>  Cheers
>>>  -- Jarod
>>