The 5 readings I’ve been attempting to digest the last 2 weeks at Ac4d, discuss many things. Grouped into topics of Value, and Participatory Design, a lot of different jargon seems to contrast ideas between the authors , which I can only assume is Jons intent, in having us “plot” authors against (or is it “with”?) each other on a dual axis graph. For me what’s underpinning all these disparate texts is how much though sure each has their own positions, they seem to be talking around each others points. Though approaches differ, the goal seems the same, the most effective way to design, either with or for the user. Norman: Argues that innovation is driven by technology, that products produce needs. Design research’s only role is enhancement, and adaptation of these products. Innovation is a systems issue: it is not about product or process. It is about the entire system, Enhancement is where the research community can add the most value. People innovate simply because they can. Kolko: Design research focusing on human behavior in a broad sense, taking a look both at and around the problem, emphasizes opportunity and potential for innovation. Gaver: Uses human participation as a form of “social computing”, where engagement leads to a mutual influence of user and designer at every stage of the process. Sanders: Monetary, experiential, and social value can be “co-designed” with user and designer working together through acts of doing, adapting, making and creating. Dourish: Working at the intersection of computer and social sciences, Dourish supports the evolution of context in practice as a broad agenda for research in interaction design. The following is a graph I made about these things: Each in their own way attempt to explain away the sense making process, even seemingly embracing it. So on that note, I leave you with a quote from William Gavers “Cultural Probes and the Value of Uncertainty” When reason is away smiles will play.