User talk:Drfederico/sandbox
Designerly ways of venturing
[edit]In my last post, we explored how Design entrepreneurship combines science, culture, and values. This has led me to a new approach that we can only call ‘designerly ways of venturing’, one that involves mindsets, human sense perception, addressable problems, and even cognitive and reasoning perspectives. This harkens back to Nigel Cross’ original terms ‘designerly ways of knowing’ in 1981. Cross has an international reputation in design research, especially in fields of design methodology and the study of design cognition. Drfederico (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Feedback
[edit]Nice start Drfederico, but the tone isn't quite right for Wikipedia.
Designers are constantly questioning first premises of how a problem is even represented and they use non-deductive modes of thinking such as analogies, ideation, and re-framing to infer possible solutions from the available information, their own experiences, and from the customer's identified pains and frustrations. They make hypotheses using the best information available, which often entails making an educated guess after observing a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation. They test hunches until they infer the best explanation for the group of observations.
- "Constantly questioning" isn't likely to be literally true, nor is "pain". Overall, this is a bit too "exciting" for an encyclopaedia entry.
- You also need to make sure that there's at least one reference per paragraph, and no text after the final reference in a paragraph. That way it's clear, even as the page continues to be edited, which citations support which text.
For example, imagine you enter the living room where the dog has been alone all day and you observe strips of papers all over the place. You ‘abduce’ that the dog tore them up. But unbeknownst to you, your roommate has decided to move out and tore up the paper in preparation for moving out. The dog theory was the likeliest until you had more information.
- A Wikipedia article isn't supposed to speak directly to the reader like this. The tone should be descriptive, not conversational. Avoid first or second person in Wikipedia articles.
As Martin says, designers use abduction to generate ideas, challenge accepted explanations, and infer possible new worlds
- When you refer to someone like this, it's best to use their full name, include a link in they have a Wikipedia article (I assume it's this Roger Martin?) and include a few words to say who they are. Otherwise the average reader will have no idea why they should give any weight to the opinions of this Martin person. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)