Talk:Critical design

Not sure how to integrate this into article, but Critical Design has plenty of non-primary references, here's a list of articles on the ACM's about it http://dl.acm.org/results.cfm?h=1&cfid=356085245&cftoken=43874335 and Dunne and Raby's Design Noir book has 414 citations in Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1525576200750282883&as_sdt=20005&sciodt=0,9&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.31.52 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical design is really important, I'm not sure why this is being considered for deletion.

Critical Design is the "Doing Business As" name of my planning consultancy in Quincy, Massachusetts since 1995. (Kevindye (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Critical design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for revision

It seems redundant to me to say "Its opposite is affirmative design." again in the third history paragraph after this was just stated. I think it might be better just to remove this second instance unless it is expanded and tied into its surrounding context better. Jrquant (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second the revision suggestion as the article does not answer what “critical design” is. It doesn’t even explain what significance “critical” would have (notably, it could be read as “critical” in a sense of analysis, or “critical” in a sense of importance). Interestingly, the entry on speculative design is clearer, particularly the “A/B Manifesto” section. — j9t (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Function section is confusing

I'm not from the design world, but I find the section Function quite confusing. Part of the problem is how the section is written, with many indefinite referents (it, this), part of the problem is that statements are made that don't seem to have a resolution, and part of the problem may be that sentences of 50+ words make it hard to connect the ideas from one sentence to the next.

For example, the first sentence says "critical design broadens the vision in design from traditional practice" but the second sentence states "how Modernism leaves a narrower understanding of physical utility". I think these two sentences attempt to show why there is some ambiguity about critical design's relationship with function, but I'm not clear if "function" refers to critical design's own function in the design process, or critical design's role in considering the function of the things being designed.

The second sentence states that Matt Malpass wrote an article about five Big Concepts in Larry Ligo's book, but I'm not sure that any of those concepts, or a mention of Larry Ligo's book, is relevant. I think there is an implicit connection between Modernism and Critical Design, but as Modernism is mentioned nowhere else in this article, it is impossible for a reader to understand why "Modernism['s] narrower understanding of physical utility when we think about function" would "lead[] to the ambiguity in Critical Design's function".

Also I'm having a hard time understanding the final sentence of the first paragraph and how it connects to the precding sentence. "It mostly emphasizes on social and cultural impact from its function". "on" and "from" don't seem like the right prepositions. I'm not sure if it would be correct to rewrite it as "Critical design emphasizes social and cultural impact instead of function.", but if that would be correct, perhaps it should be the first sentence of the entire section instead of the last?

Dan Scott (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]