Critical Response: RE Definitions of use by Johan Redström Interactive, Institute, Isafjordsgatan 22, Box 1197, SE-164 26 Kista, Sweden, 2008

Part of: Emily Carr University of Art + Design

Course: Contemporary Dialogues in Design

About the author

Johan Redström earned his Ph.D. in 2001 from Gothenburg University in Sweden. He is a Design professor at Umea Institute of Design, Sweden. His interests lie in the nexus and interconnections of design research, design philosophy, emerging technologies, experimental design, and speculative design. Previously, he has been a Rector of Umea Institute of Design and a studio director at the Interactive Institute, an adjunct professor at the University of Boras' School of Textiles, and an associate research professor at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts' Center for Design Research. He was awarded the Design Studies Award in 2006 and became a fellow of the Design Research Society in 2009. Johan's most recent works are "Making Design Theory," published by MIT Press in 2017, and "Changing Things," co-authored with Heather Wiltse and published by Bloomsbury in 2018 (Redström, n.d. -a, n.d. -b).

Keywords

Design processes

It is a process in which large projects get split into interconnected chunks with an end purpose. It involves constant iterations and referring back and forth to the insights and concepts. It ideally has six phases: empathy, define, ideate, prototype, test, and implement. These phases are not rules to follow, but they are flexible to the project's needs (Gibbons, 2016).

Design Theory

It is a system of ideas and thoughts of being able to answer why we are designing it in a certain way. It is important to have knowledge about it at every stage of the design process to have meaningful conclusions (Stevenson, 2020).

Philosophy of Design

It is a way of knowing how one approaches to design.

User-Centered Design

User-centered design seeks to anticipate future use during the design process by engaging individuals or information about people who are thought to be prospective future users. The author states that when an object is designed, the way it is used may be considerably different from how the designer initially intended for this object to be used. "Although there might be quite different motivations for identifying discrepancies between definitions of use through design and through use, taking an interest in such discrepancies seems characteristic to User-Centered Design." (Redström, 2008).

User Participation:

It is the process of observing how the participant who is a potential 'user' is using a product or service.

Key points:

Redström states that this paper can be considered as a form of conceptual exercise. The aim is to make designers think of the relationship between their designs, users and how the users use those designs. He talks a lot about 'use through use' in a design process; through this, he presents an act-based question of 'what it is we do rather than who we are.' He also provides several examples demonstrating the relationship between 'use through design and use through use.' The author suggests that giving a deep thought about the above points is important while approaching User-Centered Design.

Definition of use

The author refers to use as the action taking place when an object/thing is used. He mentions how designers not only create shapes of things but also forms of use; to describe this, he says designers prescribe the object’s use. He puts out thoughts such as the word 'use' is not accounted for every action we do with an object, also sometimes, the users might use the object in a very different way than it was intended to be used. For example, a chair becomes a ladder for kids or short people, a ladder can be used as a decorative item, and a coffee cup can be used as a small plant holder; the object becomes unique to each person.

Difference between "defining use through design and use through use"

While trying to explain the differences, the author sets forth two conceptual exercises. The first exercise is - thing-design, use-design. The author begins with the idea that design is about thing-design and use-design and takes an example of designing a chair. Though the design of a chair is a physical thing, it is also the design of a particular act of sitting. However, if we consider ergonomic design, the use design is a starting point for thing design as exemplified by the Balans chairs that the author cites. Redström explains how the distinction between thing-design and use-design and the distinction between form and function are not the same. Instead, redström reasons, both form and function refer to what thing is or does when we use it. Use, however, refers to what we do when we use it and further says, referring to the act of sitting is not a matter of the chair's functionality but of specific acts of using an object. It means it is not thing design and intended function design but actual use design that decides the ultimate outcome of any design. The Second exercise is the - Act of defining use. Apart from words like define or definition, Redström refers to 'interpretation' by Sengers and Graver, 2006, and anticipation while defining use through design; and appropriation or appreciation while defining use through use and comments that these notions also imply specific characteristics and does not want to go with them further to focus more on bare acts of defining. Reverting to the definition, Redström argues that the definition of a thing that someone makes as the personal use is existential and thus a definition of use through use typically related to much more than practical purpose.

User-centered design

Along with the definition mentioned above, the author uses the term (re-) interpretation with respect to the aim of 'User-centered design' exploring combinations of the definition of 'use through design' and definition of 'use through use'; with the design process involving design domain people and intended domain use people who may discover certain discrepancies between two definitions. Identifying discrepancies may help minimize them, helping both user and designer. In participatory design, discrepancies may give an opportunity for new designs. The author cites Sanoff, who sees, using discrepancy, making design a more open and democratic activity. The author concludes that such interest in discrepancies seems characteristic of user-centered design.

The author puts two points forward to get into the depth of user-centred design: 'before use' and 'after design.' In 'before use,' the author mentions user-centred design methods balance the process of defining 'use through design' with the process of defining 'use through use.' Participatory design can amplify the definition of 'use through use.' Prototypes or model building is worth trying out ideas and seeing actual experimental design staging scenarios of use. Scale model is a good example where new interactive technology has brought changes to traditional design practices. The author also cites Sanders, who mentions, there are differences regarding roles and relative importance of definitions of use between User-Centered Design and Participatory Design process, wherein the case of former user tests applied to with objective to minimize discrepancies, wherein the case of later discrepancies is integral to open up designing and decision making. The authorstate that in 'after design,' the definition of 'use through use' must be after the design, as there must be an object or thing to use for the action to happen. Ordinarily, the design which seems to be completed is actually unfinished. Redström has cited Jones, 1984, who points out that designers must practice designing unfinished design. It is less a matter of designing a new object but one that is perhaps better described as a form of 'continuous design' or 'redesign.'

Use-Design:

'Thing Design; embodies the notion of use design. The issue is whether the definition of 'use through use' can become a new design or some re-definition of use cast the object into 'new design.' The author gives examples of musical instruments and children's scooters, which show that functionality novel innovations will tend to be developed by users creating a new functional capability. Another example is that a personal computer becomes unique after the user has used it and gets its final finish in terms of functionality and appearance.

Close Reading

"Indeed, that sitting down in a chair is an act of defining what the object in question is, is perhaps more evident if we do something unintended with it, when we redefine what its use might be like." (Redström, 2008, p. 413).

This particular quote immediately sparked the thought of how kids explore an object. Most of the time, they use an object in a different way altogether. As in the quote, it is about 'unintended' use. For example, in a simple game of making a tent in the house by using chairs, tables, and bedsheets, the shift in use changed the entire meaning of those products. Similarly, designers should practice the participatory research approach that allows the participants to explore all the possibilities of research or a product. The instructions given should be open-ended. According to Redström, such approaches open up productive dialogues with users; that might allow the designers to get a new direction or perspective on that particular topic. He also believes that even though the product is not being used as intended, designers should not be disappointed but take it as an opportunity that could be explored instead. Knowingly or unknowingly, sometimes, we all redefine a product or a thing from time to time. This example also reminds me of the paper, Scaffolds for Experiencing in the New Design Space, by Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders, 2002, where she argues that one cannot design experience. This made me realize that no matter how direct a product's use is, it will always be on the 'user' on how to use it in the end.

Reflecting on the paper and reading the term ‘use’ and ‘user’ from a fresh point of view, it was realized that the word ‘user’ is such a misused term. I have observed that some designers often get confused or caught up with different terms like target audience, target users, participants and users. Redström says these terms have a greater value in a design process; they can potentially mislead design methodologies.

References

• Gibbons, S. (2016). Design Thinking 101. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-thinking/
• Redström, J. (2008). Re:definitions of use. Design Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.05.001
• Redström, J.(n.d. -a) johan redström. Redstrom.se. http://redstrom.se/johan/
• Redström, J. .(n.d. -b) Prof. Johan Redström | DCODE. DCODE. https://dcode-network.eu/supervisors/prof-johan-redstrom/
• Sanders, E. (2002). Scaffolds for Experiencing in the New Design Space. Echo.iat.sfu.ca. http://echo.iat.sfu.ca/library/sanders_02_scaffolds.pdf
• Stevenson, O. (2020). What Is Design Theory? The Only Guide You Need. Shillington Design Blog. https://www.shillingtoneducation.com/blog/design-theory/