BRIDGING THE GAP: DESIGNER'S “USER CONCEPT” AS A TRANSFORMATIVE TOOL BETWEEN USER KNOWLEDGE AND DESIGN

Abstract

Currently, growing public demand for an inclusive architectural environment points to a challenging task: effective integration of user knowledge to design. Addressing this issue, the purpose of the
present study is to review the problem between user knowledge and design and to propose and examine designer's “user concept” as a potential answer towards bridging the gap between user knowledge
and design. For this aim, “the definition of user knowledge,” itself, and the nature of the prevalent design model are viewed and addressed as the two main sources of the problem. Designer's “user concept”
is proposed as a transformative tool and its significant role both in identifying the need for user knowledge in design process, and in the integration of this knowledge to design is clarified.

Keywords

• Knowledge and Design; User Knowledge; Design Model; User Concept

Uygulamalı Bilimler ve Mühendislik

Abstract

Günümüzde, daha kapsayıcı mimari çevreye olan talep zorlayıcı bir görevi işaret etmektedir: kullanıcı bilgisinin etkin bir biçimde tasarıma entegre edilmesi. Bu çalışmanın amacı, bu görevi ele alarak, tasarım ile kullanıcı bilgisi arasındaki sorunu gözden geçirmek ve tasarımcının “kullanıcı kavramını” bu soruna, yani kullanıcı bilgisi ile tasarım arasındaki boşluğun kapatılmasına, yanıt olarak önerip incelemektir. Bu amaca yönelik olarak, “kullanıcı bilgisinin tanımı” ve tasarım modelinin “kabul edilmiş” tanımı problemin iki ana kaynağı olarak görülüp ele alınmıştır. Tasarımcının “kullanıcı kavramı” bir dönüştürücü araç olarak önerilmiş, tasarım sürecinde kullanıcı bilgisine olan ihtiyacın belirlenmesinde ve bu bilginin tasarıma entegre edilmesindeki önemi açığa kavuşturulmuştur

Keywords

• Bilgi ve tasarım, Kullanıcı bilgisi, Tasarım modeli, Kullanıcı kavramı

References

1. ACE Report (2004). Architects and Quality of Life, A Policy Book by the Architects’ Council of Europe, 2004. Retrieved May 14, http://www.mimarlarodasi.org.tr/UIKDoc /Cpolicybook.pdf. from
2. Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating Design: A review of Fourty Years of Design Research, Design Issues 20(1), 16-29.
3. Cross, N. (2001). Design Cognition: Results from Protocol and other Emprical Studies of Design Activity, in (eds.) Charles M. Eastman, Michael McCracken and Wendy, Newstetter, Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, Elsevier, Oxford.
4. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing, Springer-Verlag, London.
5. Jones, J.C. (1970). The State of the Art in Design Methods, In (ed.) Gary T Moore, Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning, The Colonial Press, Cambridge, 2-8. Harfield, S. 'Problematization': Differences in Designed Outcomes, Design Studies 28(2), 159-173. Design Theorizing
6. Hillier, B., Musgrove, J. and O'Sullivan, P. (1972). Knowledge and Design, (ed.) William Mitchell, EDRA 3 Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference, Strouds- bourg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross 69- 83.
7. Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of Design Studio Teaching, Journal of Architectural Education 38(2), 2-8.
8. Luckman, J. (1969). An approach to the Management of Design, in (eds.) Geofrey Broadbent and Anthony Ward, Design Methods in Architecture, George Witten- born Inc., New York 128-135.

9. Melican, J.P. (2000). Describing User-Centered Designing: How Design Teams Apply User Research Data in Creative Problem Solving, Ph.D. Dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology, Illinois.
10. Merriam Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, (2000). CD-ROM, Random House.
11. Mikellides, B. (1980). Architecture for People: Explorations in a New Humane Environment, in (ed.) Byron Mikellides, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Mitchell, C.T. (1993). Designing:from Form to Experience, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
12. Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, 1998, http://referenc.lib.binghamton.edu. 2005 from
13. Özten Anay, M. (2010). Problem Structuring with User in Mind: User Concept in the Architectural Design Studio, Ph.D. Dis- sertation, METU, Ankara.
14. Pastalan, L.A. (1977). The Emphatic Model: A Methodological Bridge between Research and Design, Journal of Architectural Education, 31(1), 1977, 14-15. Retrieved September 30, 2008 from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/1424529.
15. Popper, Karl. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford, Claren- don Press.
16. Restrepo, J. and Christiaans, H. (2003). Problem Structuring and Information Access in Design, in (eds.) N. Cross and E. Edmonds, Expertise in Design:Design Thinking Research Symposium 6, Sydney 149-162.
17. Rittel, H. and Weber, M. (1974). Wicked problems, in (eds.) Nigel Cross, David Elliott and Robin Roy, Man Made Futures: Readings in Society, Technology and Design, Hutchinson-Open University Press, London 272-280.
18. Schön, D. (1963). Displacement of Concepts, Tavistock Publications, London.
19. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books.
20. Schön, D. (1988). Towards a Marriage of Artistry & Applied Science in the Architectural Design Studio, The Journal of Architectural Education 41(4), 4-10.
21. Stringer, P. (1980). Models of Man in Casterbridge and Milton Keynes, in (ed.) Byron Mikellides Architecture for People, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York 176-186.
22. Windley, P.G. and Weisman, G. (1977). Social Science and Environmental Design: The Translation Architectural Education, 31(1), 16-19. Retrieved September 30, 2008 from http:// www.jstor.org/stable/1424530. of
23. Worthington, J. (2000). The Changing Context of Professional Practice, in (eds.) David Nicol and Simon Pilling, Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism, E&FN Spon, London, 22-33.
24. Zeisel, J. (1984). Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-Behavior Research, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge.