Talk:Design methods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on December 18, 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] Before Commenting, a Few Things to Remember

We would welcome any and all comments about the Design Methods pages. Please leave your comments, suggestions and a way to get in contact with your for any clarifications.

BEFORE providing feedback in the Discussion area, if you do not have a Wiki account, you may want to click on "Sign in / create account" link in upper right corner. Otherwise it will be difficult to know who left the suggestion, other than if you typed your name. When you log into Wiki and leave a comment, at the end place "(+~+~+~+~+)" which auto-stamps your name and time you left the message.

Scroll down to the bottom of the page, press "edit" on the last posting and insert at the top ==(subject)==, which will create a new section. If you want to comment to an existing comment, go to that section, press "edit", scroll down and hit return. Add a * (shift+8) and type your comment. Thanks.

Leave a methods&action=edit&section=new message | Send an e-mail

[edit] Comments to The Role of Design Practitioners

I'm lingering on the justification of Paul Rand. When it comes to the history of design methods, Paul Rand doesn't immediately come to mind. I appreciate his inclusion for the fact he was a graphic design pioneer. Awareness of design by corporations owes much to his efforts. Having been taught by him and observing him for that wonderful week of his last appearance at the Yale Brissago program, my view of him as an exclusively monolithic practitioner was reinforced. But I'm open to be corrected. (Design Methods Advocate 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

  • Paul should be included only for recognition that he at first rejected philosophy and then came back to it in his own way. (Design Methods 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Comments to Design Management

This section serves as good transition for the basis of methods-practicing design groups, who are reaching out to disciplines of business. Speaking about this connection, however thick or volatile, between design and business, Bruce Nussbaum, who covers design and innovation for BusinessWeek, made a recent blog entry called Innovation vs. Design—The British Design Council weighs in. Core of this entry is design's reach beyond the frame of (art)ifacts, as affected by design methods. (Design Methods Advocate 18:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

  • Thanks for the comment. This section was needed, but we should discuss how granular we want to get. Business Week has been an advocate, especially their yearly awards (mostly in product design). I will go to the Innovation section. (Design Methods 00:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Comments to The Role of Design Groups

This is a good start as an extension of The Role of Design Practitioners. Ideo and Gravity Tank are two examples of product design based firms using many of the same ideas and even language. This should be expanded over time to discuss the intersection of process and method, since much of what they discuss is process (when). We also probably need to discuss the new grouping of skill sets. Brainstorming is over 40 years old as an idea, the question is how is it different now? (Design Methods 01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Complementing Design Practitioners with Design Groups feeds the role of Design Management. This segue provides more evidence of design methods figuring into the commercial work environment. This also provides a sense of broadened scale and scope of adopters of design methods not only by design disciplines but also by those of business. (Design Methods Advocate 14:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

The International Council of Graphic Design Associations (Icograda) had a recent Opinion poll regarding method of preference when doing design research. Categories were Behavioral, Participatory and Survey. Participatory design research scored highest but all scores were close in proximity. Such culling from design community testifies to professional practice of design methods. (Design Methods Advocate 17:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

  • Just a thought. The Role of Design Groups was very much affected by the rise of the internet and the integration of information technologies. This caused new skills such as ethnography, cognitive science, information architecture, etc. to be integrated into more traditional design skill sets. I would say that Clement Mok was an instrumental bridge between traditional design consultancies and the new interdisciplinary consultancies. I would also state that Ideo was very much driven from engineering as David Kelly's background is in engineering. It seems as if industrial designers and engineers invigorated designers and design methods. These are a few thoughts to chomp on. (Design Methods 15:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
    • I did want to wrap, and still plan to do so without being reactionary, fast-forward statements in first paragraph of Design Groups regarding I.T., an apparent accelerant to skill sets of design disciplines, particularly interface and interaction design. "It" also has accelerated product and service offerings resulting in added complexity for companies. Coping with this complexity, even managing it, is an opportunity for designers with applied understanding of design methods. (Design Methods Advocate 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Comments to Expansion of Digital Technologies

Thanks for this addition. I added to paragraph on Clement Mok. I thought it was appropriate to add in his book Designing Business: Multiple Media, Multiple Disciplines. The title alone echoes the muliplicity nature of Design methods and their adopters. In particular, Mok's manifesto-esque tome contributes to the argument of advancing design's collaboration and sensitivity to context. Also, should this section be renamed "Impact of Information Technology"? Digital Technologies is too specific to me. (Design Methods Advocate 22:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

This sub-section also provides a stage for the following part on Design Education as it relates to Design methods, which no doubt is an area constantly provoked by I.T., as both a source of equipment and dilemma. (Design Methods Advocate 22:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

  • Thanks for the addtions. I agree about Clement's intent, however I would like to reduce the use of "context", "paradigm" and other words which seem to mean very little. I do agree with the change in the name of the Digital Technologies section and will rename it. (Design Methods 21:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC))
    • I changed "Digital Technologies" to the more collective label of Information Technology. (Design Methods Advocate 23:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Added Sub-Section on Design Education

Don't know if this belongs under Articulations or should be a level up in the hierarchy. Also fixed those Back to Tops. (Design Methods Advocate 22:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

  • This topic I have lots of trepidation about due to how large it is. Education needs to be addressed, but think we still need to clean up and detail the topical areas that we already have. Let's hold off adding any more sections, except we should discuss adding "New Technologies, New Skill Groups" (Currently Design Group section), From Method to Methodology (discussing the difference between methods and process and the creation of methodological frameworks). (Design Methods 00:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC))
    • Smart move to move this topic onto its own page considering its intricate scope, allowing Design Methods's connection to Design education to be investigated. (Design Methods Advocate 06:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Comments to Current State of Design Methods

What is the source for Victor Margolin's challenges to making Design methods a unified vehicle of knowledge? Also, designers are, relatively speaking, problem solvers, but broadly speaking and probably more empathic, designers, whatever the discipline, attempt to transform situations for the better. Problems can be perceived as points in isolation in contrast to situations that are more encompassing. Design methods can be described as a collective way to solve to a certain extent situations where users intersect with a product or service and Nature. (Design Methods Advocate 22:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

  • Victor speaks of creating an agreed "problematique" where we can focus on a limited number of issues to solve with collective energies. He calls this the "topoi". Yes, designers are problem solvers, but so are lawyers, accountants and just about every other profession. What separates designers from other professions is an acute yearning for media and the users that use them. All designers call themselves by the medium in which they use. I agree that we are moving from "products" to "situations", but we need to define what these are in order to have a deeper dialogue. As for design methods as a collective activity, this was originally agreed up in 19652, but it took almost 40 years for a small segment of the design community to come around to this idea. (Design Methods 18:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Reversion in first section

What was the point of taking things backwards to something like this?

Tomas Maldonado, an Argentinian architect and director of the post-war design school, Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm, strove to link design to improvement of the social dimension. He realized that design, as an applied art, was a synthetic discipline that borrrowed heavily from other disciplines. There was a gap between the craft language of design and the post-war complexity that demanded more of design to transform the expression/production model to one of methods, systems and processes.
Maldonado realized that design, as an applied art, was a synthetic discipline that borrrowed heavily from other disciplines.

That puts back a duplication. The whole article, at 50K, is too long, and too like someone's manifesto. I am quite prepared to work piecemeal at improving it. But regressive edits are not a good idea.

Charles Matthews 17:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks Charles for your comments, and we did not realize this was edited by anyone - so first off sorry. I am not sure what you are requesting or asking. If it is for this passage to be shortened, then we are in agreement. As for the whole article size, I am aware of the 35K standard, and am meeting with contributors to determine what to do. There is no manifesto intent, but to describe and define an area that is difficult to describe and define. Design methods will need to be broken apart and new articles created. We are somewhat new to Wikidom and are responsive to constructive suggestions, so please keep them coming (Design Methods 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Consult the Page History for the past edits. If you have the page on your watchlist you can track edits as they are made. Charles Matthews 08:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks Charles for your extensive editing and reordering of design methods. We met and many of your ideas and comments we discussed - so we are in alignment in sevreral of the changes. However, we did some reordering and edited some of the changes to come closer to our intention to have a good overview of design methods in the right order. Also, the article is at 35K, which was one of our goals. Thank you for your help, we do appreciate it. (Design Methods 16:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Ongoing edits

Ongoing edits to this page are causing problems. I will mention

  • non-use of edit summaries - it is not acceptable to make 50, 60 or more edits without a single edit summary in explanation. This effectively excludes others from comprehension of what is being done to the article
  • non-use of minor edit check-box
  • retrograde steps - it is not acceptable to replace internal links, for example to A Pattern Language, by external links
  • overlinking - John Christopher Jones does not need a link on every occasion; I put in intensive work in reducing the linkage of this page into conformity with standard policy and practice
  • textbook-style provocative headings are not in place in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia centrally concerned with documentation, and not supposing that the reader requires didacticism
  • large cuts of material without any consultation or indication.

It should be well noted that no concept of 'ownership' is recognised on Wikipedia. Page editing is a collective activity.

Charles Matthews 08:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you Charles for your commitment to improving Design Methods, we appreciate it (collectively). Below are our comments to your points:
  • non-use of edit summaries - it is not acceptable to make 50, 60 or more edits without a single edit summary in explanation. This effectively excludes others from comprehension of what is being done to the article – agreed
  • non-use of minor edit check-box – we have used the minor edit box when appropriate. We will review what is considered a minor edit.
  • retrograde steps - it is not acceptable to replace internal links, for example to A Pattern Language, by external links - yes, however if an external link has better source information, then it should be available
  • overlinking - John Christopher Jones does not need a link on every occasion; I put in intensive work in reducing the linkage of this page into conformity with standard policy and practice - agreed
  • textbook-style provocative headings are not in place in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia centrally concerned with documentation, and not supposing that the reader requires didacticism - it is not our intent to have provocative headings and we do not believe that we have crossed any line
  • large cuts of material without any consultation or indication. - while we agree with your comment, we were not consulted when you reworked design methods. In the discussion page of every posted document is where suggestions and comments should be placed
  • It should be well noted that no concept of 'ownership' is recognised on Wikipedia. Page editing is a collective activity. - agreed (67.173.159.109 15:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

On linking externally. Wikipedia:External links, a style guide page, notes Wikipedia always prefers internal links, even to non-existent articles, over external links.. Therefore inline but external links should always be replaced by wikilinks, as matter of high priority. The rationale is to develop our articles here as a whole, by encouraging editors to improve Wikipedia content in line with the best available elsewhere. Red links favour the creation of organic growth here, you could say. So, for example in the case of A Pattern Language, there is a strong presumption in favour of using a wikilink. Inline links to other websites have a primary use to back up citations. They are otherwise to some extent deprecated, and tend to accumulate in the dedicated sections at the ends of articles. Charles Matthews 16:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments to Formalization of Design Methods

Thanks for adding John Christopher Jones's diagram from his 1970 book Design Methods. It's a fascinating multidisciplinary matrix with concepts that resonate more so today such as "design situation," "functional innovation," "value analysis," even "boundary searching" which speaks to framing problems as robustly as possible. These concepts describe design as systemic. What's the legend for the gray zones? And it would be an interesting exercise to compare this lens from more than thirty years ago to today's take on Design Methods, both inputs and outputs. Will the results be a reflection or refraction? (Design Methods Advocate 03:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

  • The gray zones that you are referring to is how JCJ rationalized different ways design is practiced. On the far right, the headings and methods are most concerned with traditional design crafts, the gray zone to the left is concerned with design by drawing when design seperated from the crafts, the gray zone to the left is concerned with the design of systems, and the last gray zone to the left is concerned with technological change. Your exercise is something that needs to be done. (Design Methods 14:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Links and more links

As far as I understand it, external links should be at the end of the article as references, external links, etc. The article had numerous external links throughout, which I've now removed or placed in the appropriate location at the end of the article. If there are ones that I removed but should be included, please reinsert them, or at least discuss them here. Also, I think the article would be better off if the duplicate wikilinks were removed. --Ronz 16:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure I agree, at least given the way you've phrased this. Footnotes and referenes should be embedded in the article. It's true that the wording of the citation will appear at the end, but the numbered footnotes or references will be in the body of the article.
More to the point, it's very much preferred to convert external links to footnotes rather than moving them to the end of the article; the later destroys the relationship between the link and the sentence or paragraph that it provided support for. On the other hand, looking at the version of September 24th, I don't see all that many external links inside the article. John Broughton | Talk 03:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I've gone back through all my cleanup of the external links, and cannot find any that were being actually used as citations of footnotes. Instead, I've only found inappropriate external links. I find the accusations of my removing sources [1] to be meritless, but of course I have been from the very start open to the possibility that I've overlooked something. Please provide me with a diff, or let's move on. --Ronz 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I don't know how to tackle all the problems I see in this article, but I'm hoping the tags will attract the attention of those who do. From my perspective:

  • The article is very poorly referenced. It needs many, many more references than it currently has so the content can be verified and shown not to be original research.
  • The article refers to sources that are not actually listed as references, and the references need to be organized and properly formatted. I'm afraid my early attempts in October at cleaning up the external links that were being used as references only made this worse, though maybe I just made it more apparent at how poorly referenced the whole article actually is.
  • The article needs to be heavily abridged and/or structured and/or separated into new articles. Currently there is a great deal of content, much of it rather vague, and much of it far off from the original topic.

    --Ronz 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am somwhat surprised at the four flags for this article. This particular topic has gone through more review by more people than most articles and has been very responsive in making corrections when asked. Your issues are too broad and you do not offer clear suggestions:

1) The article offers many references, both within the article and at the end of the article. We had more references but were told to reduce them and have more internal referneces within Wikipedia, which we did where possible;

2) Your cleanup in October of references deleted the sources as refererences and now you are stating that there are not enough references. You need to be very specific in what you mean by references. We believe this article is properly referenced.

3) As for the article being abridged, we had shortened it, but Design Methods has many linkages. We will try to shorten it further.

I request that you delete the banners at the top of the page and instead use the comments page to have other wiki's help. (Design Methods 13:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Great, then let's fix it. --Ronz 15:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed two of the four banners/tags: Template:citation style and Template:Essay-entry. I removed the first because there aren't inconsistencies between citation styles (this refers to footnotes, references, and regular external links; only the latter is found here) and the second because while the article is somewhat essay-like, it has headings and flow that are reasonably close to what is expected. (In other words, that's not the most serious of problems, and it's not where fixing the article should start.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Broughton (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm fine with this. I agree that they're not the priority items. I put in citation style because Design Methods claims I removed references, yet the references were so poorly organized and identified that I have no ideas what items were actually being used as references. This should be a minor problem, but I'm worried why it was never addressed in the reviewing that Design Methods mentions.
As for essay, I see it as an issue because this article does not have a central focus, especially not that of an encyclopedia. I don't see much organization in the sections, or how they fit together. They meander from subject to subject, going in interesting directions but without focus. The OR tag identifies the most obvious and potentially most serious problem, that the article may contain original research. --Ronz 04:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What I guess we're trying to do here is finally address the concerns brought up in the Dec 18 2005 AfD. --Ronz 04:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Good luck on that. Hopefully if there aren't arguments over tags, there will be more time to address the article's real problems. Of course, if one real problem is that the article is four times the size it should be (and I'm not taking a position that it is, though the possibility exists), for whatever reason, it's pretty hard to get consensus to shorten it. Sometimes the best you can do is mark the article as a problem and put it on your watchlist, in the hope that other editors with more time and interest (I don't know how much you have of either) will arrive and help fix it. John Broughton | Talk 15:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate John's efforts and feedback which are clearer and more focused than the former editor. The subject of design methods is synthetic and as such incorporates several historical trends. The article is not poorly organized and after each section brings it back to design methods. As for the article length, it was 96KB, which seemed to be on the larger range of article size, but by no means out of bounds. We will continue to work on this. (Design Methods 00:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

In response to the points above from User:Design methods:

"This particular topic has gone through more review"

I disagree. The issues from the Dec 2005 AfD have barely begun to be addressed.

"very responsive in making corrections when asked"

I disagree. See below. No offense, but I think the problem may be the apparent inexperience with wiki policy and guidelines of the major contributors to this article. I'll try to explain in more depth to avoid continued miscommunication.

"1) The article offers many references..."

I'm not sure you understand what references are appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm still trying to figure out what most of this article is about because of how vague much of it is and how poorly referenced. I'm unable to verify most of what is written so far. The article appears to be largely original research inappropriate for wikipedia.

"2) Your cleanup in October of references deleted the sources"

Please provide evidence, or retract the statement. I cannot find any such sources, and no one has pointed out any either, despite requesting help in this specific matter when I made the edits back in October.

"3) As for the article being abridged"

That is only one option I offered. I'm think it should be broken up into multiple, smaller articles.

--Ronz 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We are sorry that you find Design Methods either inappropriate or confusing for Wikipedia. We believe that Design Methods is a good addition to this important resource and has gone through quite a bit of scruitiny. We have been responsive to many suggestions and ideas and feel that Design Methods is at a better state because of it. Design Methods is not original research, but has over 37 years of history starting with a published book from 1970 and a masters program in design methods from IIT. We believe that the article is not vague. Your opinion is important to us, but you need to be clear as to what things are vague in particular so we can address it. We have references to the Design Research Society, a scholar on design methods and research from Istanbul, and internal links within Wikipedia. As for breaking the article up into smaller articles, if you have specific suggestions as to what could be made into a seperate article, that would be great. We will explore ways to make the article smaller as well. The goal of Wikipedia is to have a resource that is more expansive based on a larger set of knowledge and experience. We have put time and effort into making this addition worthwile to address a topic that is important. We hope you respect our efforts and we are sure that we will find a mutually beneficial solution. (Design Methods 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
Who is this "we" that you're referring to? Are you speaking for others, or just yourself?
I don't believe you understand what original research is, or what I'm saying about original research. It is not that the topic is original research, but that you (and possibly other editors) have written an article that at least partially consists of unverifiable original research. --Ronz 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"We" includes me. So author Design Methods is not speaking solo. I've been contributing to Design methods article at and since its inception (as documented in history). Being a practitioner and holding a graduate degree in Design Methods, I have a highly vested interest in this important topic, recognized in both academia and business. But of course, we are not the only ones keen on understanding and using Design Methods, companies, e.g. IDEO, and organizations, e.g. Design Council, rely on them to creatively and collaboratively solve problems. --Design Methods Advocate 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's inappropriate for an editor to speak for other editors. As for your expertise and what others are doing, what's the point? --Ronz 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

I don't understand what this article is about, so if nothing else, the lead section needs a complete rewrite. Lead section offers a great deal of useful advise. Because I don't yet understand what the topic of the article is, I don't think I can contribute much to it alone. (This is in part why I prefer to split the article up.) --Ronz 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion about this specific issue when we first worked on the addition of Design Methods. This area focuses on designers collaborating with other disciplines in creating better solutions by exploring possibilities and constraints, redefining the specifications for design activities, managing the process continually over time, and prototyping possible scenarios, or solutions that incrementally or significantly improve the inherited situation. There has been a recongition that design adds value to corporate and business activities, but designers have not traditionally been allowed to be involved with front-end discussions with management. Design methods is a bridge (not the bridge) to make this possible. Design methods is no less clear than other frameworks and ideas, and is a co-intellegence between left and right brained thinking. (Design Methods 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
Two things here. Whatever discussion happened concerning the lead section, it was not shared with other editors or otherwise made available to them. Either share it, or assume that other editors don't know what discussion happened.
The more I research this article, the more I think that the focus of the article is unclear even to those who've contributed the bulk of this article. Design methods is nothing that anyone has been able to define here in any concrete way. But when I read the many sources here I find plenty of discussion about the many design methods, many methods for approaching and doing various design activities. From this perspective, I suspect there are many, many references available on design methods pre-dating the 1962 conference. It's hard for me to believe that Henry Dreyfuss or his peers haven't written about design methods. --Ronz 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I suspect too there are possible references to Design Methods pre-1962 conference but this is not the point. We decided to connect to this event because it was a definitive pre-cursor to John Chris Jones' seminal book. He was the first to codify and publish a work exclusively about a forward-thinking topic which resonates today. It is our belief that Design Methods became a more visible term during the 1960s. --Design Methods Advocate 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree here. --Ronz 21:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: Mediation

There is a civil conversation going on here (good), but it seems like not much progress is being made on reaching a consensus/compromise/third way (bad). I suggest that getting a mediator involved - that is, a third party who is willing to commit a few hours to helping out here - would be a good next step. (And, no, I'm not volunteering - not my skill set or something I have time for at the moment).

As you may be aware, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lays out a process for resolving disagreements on content. That page has links to both the formal and informal (Cabal) mediation processes; I suggest you guys work out which one you prefer and go for it. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Design Methods has requested that I mediate informally (i.e. a Cabal like process); Ronz, please let me know if you would agree to this. Some guidelines:
  • I have no formal authority here, this is just an attempt to resolve both parties concerns in a way that is acceptable to everyone.
  • I ask that parties be clear, concise and specific about their concerns with the article content; please try to avoid discussing other editors whenever possible.
  • Should any party feel that mediation has become unproductive, my attempts will cease. Mediation through the Cabal or the official Committee are still excellent choices available to assist in resolving the dispute.
If both of you can let me know if you'd like to proceed, I'll be happy to do what I can to help. One immediate suggestion I have in regards to the important concern of verifiablity; it appears that many external links have been lost in the cleanup process - many of these are supporting references that were simply not entered in one of Wikipedia's typical formats. For a look at some of these external links, see this diff: [2]. For information on listing references for a Wikipedia article, many methods are discussed at WP:CITE. Shell babelfish 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Great. I welcome your help.
The first issues I see here ensuring all parties involved understand the relevant wiki policies and guidelines to have a discussion. This seems a very clear case of WP:OWN, though the first I've encountered. We're not going to make progress if everyone doesnt understand what is meant by original research, verifiability, and other wiki issues brought up here and in the Dec 05 AfD.
As for the external links, I've already made my perspective clear. Others are welcome to go through each and every one of them as I have, looking for references that were should have remained. I've done so twice now, and have from the very beginning asked for other editors involvement and confirmation. I'm standing by my conclusions until others weigh in. I suppose we can identify each and every link from Shell's diff above, and discuss them, but only after it's clear that everyone understands the relevant policies & guidelines (WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:V are probably the most pertinent).
As for WP:CITE, I'm fairly good at it now. I can make urls into refs and put in an auto-ref list. --Ronz 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, lets see what we can do to get started. Remember, please try to focus on your concerns about the article and not other editors; we'll work on making sure everyone is understanding how policy relates as we go along. Ronz's first concern seems to be that the article does not currently meet the standards outlined in the verifiability policy. Currently, the standard References section does not exist.

  • Design Methods, since you have done a great deal of work on the article, can you please list the sources you used for the information found in the article? If you're not sure how to format them or incorporate them into the article, feel free to list them here or take a look at WP:CITE for ideas on successful referencing. We will eventually want to identify which sections come from which reference to support the article properly. Again, using this link [3] you can view some of the external links you originally had in the article which may help remind you of the sources you used. One thing to note: Providing the citation to a book or journal is preferred to providing an external link to the information. Also, I noticed that you sometimes use the word "We" when writing from your account - I was wondering if this implied that more than one person used the Design methods account?
  • Ronz, please take a look at the cleanup you did to remove external links and determine if any of those links may have been appropriate sources for the article. For instance, while Investigating Design was poorly placed in the article, it does verify some of the information and gives a good overview of the history of the topic. Since you mentioned some confusion about the topic due to the article's writing style, if you'd like to read that article, it may help give you a better understanding to work from. Shell babelfish 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No disrespect, but I've done so, twice. I'll be happy to follow up and work with others'. I'll definitely take a look at the one you've pointed out. Maybe we should just do as I've suggested - list them all and go over them one by one. --Ronz 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Response

When we first posted design methods (there was a posting for Design Method - no "s" and has subsequently been taken down or deleted), we heavily referenced John Chris Jones' book "Design Methods" (Wiley & Sons : New York, 1970). The beginning definition is a distillation from the book, but there is no standardized definition of design methods per se. Originally, we had great emphasis on John Chris Jones, but when the article was challenged the first time, it was deemed appropriate to break his information into a separate article and keep design methods focused on the concept. This was done.

A collaborator of mine (design methods advocate) has been working with me to build and refine the article over time. He has been using his own account. We have also had comments from John Chris Jones and Nigel Holmes, two of the original participants in the formation of design methods.

When we were citing sources, from the first challenge, we were requested where possible to link internally within Wikipedia first and then link to external sites. We went through the content, and where appropriate made internal links to supporting content and to be able to shorten the length of the article. Where we could not, we had external links to organizations that came from the design methods movement.

  • 2.1 Design as Art and Industry came from my direct experiences and infilled by referenced authors.
  • 2.2 Directed Discontent and An Opportunity content came from the book Design Methods.
  • 3 Formalization of Design Methods came from the book Design Methods.
  • 3.2 Emergence of Design Research and Design Studies came from the most part from Nigan Bayazit, professor at the Istanbul Technical University's article on the history of Design Research as well as Victor Margolin's book "Design of the Artificial."
  • 3.3 Professional Design Practice came in part from Jay Doblin's article "A Short Grandiose Theory of Design"
  • 3.4 Design Management came from the London Design Council and DMI websites.
  • 3.5 Proliferation of Information Technologies came from my direct experiences and infilled by referenced authors.
  • 3.6 Design Planning came from my direct experiences.
  • 4 Current State of Design Methods came from the book Design Methods.

We did review the style guide for using resources on Wikipedia. We tried to follow internal links, the harvard footnoting method and external links. We did have more links, but if you look at the history of edits, many participants deleted internal links that they may have considered inappropraite. The article references several authors, book titles and where appropriate page numbers. We have direct web links to specific organizations that evolved from the design methods movement or support the activities of design methods. We would like to add the Design Management Institute, the London Design Council's entry on Design Methods.

Most importantly John Chris Jones has supported the content of the entry and has given permission to use his copyrighted content within the Design Methods entry. (Design Methods 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Great job here! This gives us a great deal to follow up on. --Ronz 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, that's a great start! At first glance, I see two things that need to be clarified:
  • Wikipedia policy doesn't currently permit editors to write from their own experience. This unfortunately means even experts need to provide a source for the information they provide - this source can be themselves only if the information they're adding was first published in reputable media. For instance, we sometimes have scientists drop by to provide article updates based on information they have published in a peer-reviewed journal. These experts typically post this information to the talk page of the appropriate article, since Wikipedia strongly discourages contributors from editing articles in which they may have an interest.
  • If material in the article has previously been released under copyright by John Chris Jones, confirmation of his permission to re-release the text under our GFDL license must be lodged with the Wikimedia Foundation. This can be accomplished by having Mr. Jones send an email to permissions at wikimedia dot org. Until this confirmation has been received and logged (a notice will be put on this talk page when that is completed), the copyrighted material should be removed from the article.
I also noticed that the items listed under the Books header all appear to have been used as reference material for the article. Perhaps renaming that section to References would be a good start and other items could be added on? Shell babelfish 02:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added the Investigating Design pdf that Shell spotted as a ref, as well as Jones' Design Methods. The other two books aren't being used as references as far as I can tell. Also did some reorganization. --Ronz 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Design Planning section as original research described in the comments above. --Ronz (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Mediation (Part Two)

Thank you for the helpful feedback and comments. Also Ronz, thank you for improving the references section as it is better than before. Below are a few comments and suggestions:

  • Wikipedia policy doesn't currently permit editors to write from their own experience. -- Much of the content in the sections are mainstream content (especially the design history component) and is an expedited overview to understand the transition of design from a craft-based trade of materiality to one of becoming involved with mass production and the rise of methods and processes. In many Wiki articles, there is an overview section or a narrative that has no source, but uses links within Wikipedia and we followed this style. I can backtrack it to a source or a series of sources for reference purposes, but there is no "primer" source for aggregated content.
  • If material in the article has previously been released under copyright by John Chris Jones, confirmation of his permission to re-release the text under our GFDL license must be lodged with the Wikimedia Foundation. -- I will have John Chris Jones send an e-mail as confirmation to the e-mail address you have provided. This will be done quickly and do not feel that deleting either references or visual assets is necessary since he provided permission.
I've added the Investigating Design pdf that Shell spotted as a ref, as well as Jones' Design Methods. The other two books aren't being used as references as far as I can tell. Also did some reorganization. -- Thank you Ronz for doing this!

I look forward to additional feedback as we improve the article (Design Methods 05:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)).


As an organizational tool, I'm going to try to reverse your list of references above from by section to by reference:

  • Experience and referenced authors: "(2.1) Design as Art and Industry", "(3.5) Proliferation of Information Technologies"
  • Jones' Design Methods: "(2.2) Directed Discontent and An Opportunity", "(3) Formalization of Design Methods", "(4) Current State of Design Methods"
  • Bayazit ref and Victor Margolin's book "(3.2) Design of the Artificial: "Emergence of Design Research and Design Studies"
  • Jay Doblin's article A Short Grandiose Theory of Design: "(3.3) Professional Design Practice"
  • London Design Council and DMI websites: "(3.4) Design Management"
  • Experience: "(3.6) Design Planning"

--Ronz 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued help, it is appreciated. (Design Methods 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC))
No problem. I've been a bit busy. I should have time soon to get the Margolin and Doblin refs listed the way I did Bayazit's. Next would be finding the specific references from the London Design Council and DMI websites. --Ronz 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I added the links to Doblin, DMI, London Design Council and Victor Margolin (Design Methods 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC))
Good job! I'm still busier than I expected, but we're making good progress regardless. --Ronz 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I will await further suggestions (Design Methods 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Verifying Sources

What is "Design of the Artificial" that's mentioned twice? I'm unable to find any book by that title. --Ronz 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How is "The Reflective Practitioner" being used here? It sounds like a reference. It looks like there are other references in here, like Mok's Designing Business. --Ronz 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how Victor Margolin's and Nigel Cross' websites are being used as sources. --Ronz 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how the British Design Council's and the Design Management Institute's websites are being used as sources. --Ronz 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments:

1) Design of the Artificial Sorry, it is Politics of the Artificial (I have corrected it). You can find it at http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Artificial-Essays-Design-Studies/dp/0226505049/sr=8-9/qid=1169918870/ref=sr_1_9/104-8154005-0899116?ie=UTF8&s=books

2) How is "The Reflective Practitioner" being used here? It sounds like a reference. It looks like there are other references in here, like Mok's Designing Business They are references. The Reflective Practitioner is a great book that saw the crisis in confidence of professions in general, and professional skills in particular. It is appropriate to discuss 'technical-rationality' and design methods POV that there needs to be a balance between logic and intuition (called co-intelligence).

3) I don't understand how Victor Margolin's and Nigel Cross' websites are being used as sources. I don't understand how the British Design Council's and the Design Management Institute's websites are being used as sources. Victor and Nigel are sources as they are supporting the content of the article directly.

If you have any suggestions of how to clarify or improve, please let me know. (Design Methods 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

I'm a bit busy today, so no time to explain further, but it would help if you read through WP:V. I'm trying to verify sources used to create the article. I don't know how Victor Margolin's, Nigel Cross', the British Design Council's, and the Design Management Institute's websites are being used as sources. I cannot verify anything from the information I have currently concerning them. Sorry that I'm being abrupt with this. I'll explain more later when I have the time. --Ronz 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if you could point to the pages or sections of the websites that have the supporting information? For instance, the British Design Council's site has quite a bit of information on it - are there papers or articles on the site that support some of the text of the article (if so, which articles go with which text?) or is the website just being used to support the background information on the Council in the last paragraph of the Design Management section (if so, maybe we can reference the actual page on the website that contains this information)?
Basically, Ronz is trying to help tie specific references to the material they support so that a) the material in the article can be easily verified by other editors and b)readers are aware of exactly where to look for more information on particular topics. A good example of how this works is the article Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) - You'll notice references dispersed throughout the article showing what text they support - all of the references give full details and link directly to the pertinent web page or document (in the case of offline sources, page numbers are often used instead). The MRT article is an excellent example (and one of our featured articles) of how Wikipedia guidelines and style come together to create a great article.Shell babelfish 18:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that we are not aligned in terms of resources and sources. I have created links to specific websites that relate directly to the subject. For example, Victor Margolin has a website and is linked to his name, just like Nigel Cross, DMI and the Design Council. The Design Council did have a subsection on design methods, but the site has been restructured and is not there anymore. Each section of Wiki design methods discusses a trend that either design methods helped spawn, or is part of the contemporary practice of design methods. One of the challenges to Wikipedia is that not every bit of knowledge resides in digital form. This is why, where I reference books or content in books, I list the name of the reference. The only main reference for design methods is the book Design Methods, which has been credited through out the article. If you would like me to take away the specific web links to specific people that the article is referencing, I will do so. (Design Methods 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
Yes, references and sources have very specific meanings in Wikipedia. I'm not sure that the links need to be completely removed. If they're not being used as sources, then they should at least be considered for inclusion in the External links section, if they meet WP:EL. --Ronz 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I moved all external links to the external links section. I did find the Design Council's direct reference to design methods and this resides in the last section of the article (Design Methods 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
Does it make sense to you why I restored the Doblin reference? Because the AIGA's profile is the source of the information about him, it is properly listed as a reference.
Did you look at WP:EL? It would be better to link to specific webpages that relate directly to the content, rather than what we have now. For instance, one or more of Margolin's articles would be better than just his main page. --Ronz 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other refs

I've started this section to identify other references used in the article so they can be discussed and properly formatted.

I'm going to list other references listed in the article that need to be formatted as such. Feel free to add others I've missed:

  • Done? The Conference on Design Methods: papers presented at the conference on systematic and intuitive methods in engineering, industrial design, architecture and communications, London, September 1962, Edited by John Christopher Jones and Denis Thornley, Pergamon Press, Oxford, London, New York and Paris.
  • Done (p. 128, The Politics of the Artificial: Essays on Design and Design Studies)
  • Herbert Simon's 1968 lecture "The Sciences of the Artificial."
  • It seems like there are some unnamed Nigel Cross references.
  • Jay Doblin's "A Short, Grandiose Theory of Design", published in the 1987 Society of Typographic Arts Design Journal.
  • Victor Papanek's Design for the Real World.
  • Done Clement Mok's Designing Business: Multiple Media, Multiple Disciplines (1996)
  • Done Donald Schon's Reflective Practitioner.
  • Articles from John Christopher Jones' website would probably be useful as references.

--Ronz 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In my comments above, I was trying to communicate that I thought it was important to have external links to specific topics like Doblin. We mention DMI and Design Council and thought direct links from proximity to their name was appropriate.
Below are our comments to your further suggestions:
  • The Conference on Design Methods: papers presented at the conference on systematic and intuitive methods in engineering, industrial design, architecture and communications, London, September 1962, Edited by John Christopher Jones and Denis Thornley, Pergamon Press, Oxford, London, New York and Paris.

- there is no direct web link to this article. We have tried to find it, but it is not digital - yet.

  • (p. 128, The Politics of the Artificial: Essays on Design and Design Studies)

- there is no direct web link to this book. We have tried to find it, but it is not digital - yet.

  • Herbert Simon's 1968 lecture "The Sciences of the Artificial."

- We have a wiki reference to Herbert Simon. Whenever possible, Wiki states to rely on internal references fist. We can add an external link - if needed

  • It seems like there are some unnamed Nigel Cross references.

- we will review

  • Jay Doblin's "A Short, Grandiose Theory of Design", published in the 1987 Society of Typographic Arts Design Journal.

- there is no direct web link to this article. We have tried to find it, but it is not digital - yet.

  • Victor Papanek's Design for the Real World.

- There is a Wiki link

  • Clement Mok's Designing Business: Multiple Media, Multiple Disciplines (1996)

- we will find an external link, if there is one

  • Donald Schon's Reflective Practitioner.

- we will find an external link, if there is one

  • Articles from John Christopher Jones' website would probably be useful as references.

- we will link to specific ones

  • Design Methods is capitalized in this context as it is a formal name. (Design Methods 12:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
You're confusing external links with references. I've asked for help from Shell because these are repeated problems you've been making that are frustrating the heck out of me. --Ronz 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I have read Wiki standards and I believe that the discussion we are having is around craftsmanship issues. We have tried to be responsive to every concern you have had. Your most recent request for additional sources, where possible, we have identified specific sources to support the content that is in proximity to the source. This is not always possible as we have stated above. Our goal is not to frustrate you. We believe that Shel's participation may be needed. (Design Methods 19:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
I don't think you understand enough about wikipedia and writing encyclopedia articles for us to even communicate on these matters. For some reason you think we need to find online versions of these references when we do not. I'm going to go ahead and fix the article. --Ronz 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No comment (Design Methods 17:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC))
I've removed all the linkspam at least. Still lots more to do tracking down these references. I think all of them have ISBN, ISSN, or DOI identifiers - it's just a matter of taking the time and finding them. --Ronz 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you (Design Methods 17:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Wikify

There are number of persons and probably important topics listed in this article that have wiki articles themselves. The first instance should be linked to its article. Especially important ones might be listed in "See also" as well. --Ronz 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why design methods should be capitalized as it is throughout the article. --Ronz 19:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that I've been unable to verify that "Design Methods" is different from design methods. Please provide a reference. --Ronz 17:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
When we refer to the book, it will remain initialized, when we discuss it in general it will be lower case. (Design Methods 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Removed for discussion

I think there may be some useful information from below, but I don't see it as belonging in the lead. Also, the wiley link is linkspam, and the softopia link doesnt actually appear to be used as a source, but instead as a link to a site with further information, which should instead go in the external links section: --Ronz 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

John Chris Jones, the author of the only published book on design methods, and one of the original participants in the 1962 Conference that defined it, has several articles on his experience with its definition and development. [1] With the entry of many professionals from the social and natural sciences into the design, the debate of “how” to practice design methods has caused friction, discontent and a plurality of application and evaluation.


Removed this from "Directed Discontent and An Opportunity". Again, it appears to be an external link for more information rather than a source. --Ronz 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

John Chris Jones thoughts on the 1962 conference


Removed this from "Directed Discontent and An Opportunity". Seems like it belongs elsewhere as it's pretty awkward to introduce the book like this. It also brings up the question of what this article is about. Is it about the book, Jones' own thoughts about design methods, about design methods from the perspective of the 1962 conference and after, or about design methods in general?

Throughout the book Design Methods (read below), emphasis was on integrating creative and rational skills for a broader view and application of design.

--Ronz 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

John Chris Jones developed design methods and codified the term. The link to Wiley is a legitimate link to the publisher of the book. Thanks for instead placing the ISBN numbers for the books, that is appreciated.
We question the deletion of the Jones paragraph.
The link to Directed Discontent is specifically related to the participants and was the soruce.
The article is about design methods and its development. It is not about Jones, but he was the originator and the one who wrote the only book on design methods. (Design Methods 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
The link to Wiley is linkspam per WP:EL.
You "question the deletion"? I moved it here for discussion. Let's discuss it.
The links from "Directed Discontent and An Opportunity" was a source? Let's put it back in. Next time you might want to indicate what you're doint in the "Edit summaries" so we don't waste time on such matters. --Ronz 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand about Wiley
We placed this short paragraph at the beginning to state that there was an originator of the term Design Methods and someone who wrote the first and only book about it. It also recognizes that manhy people use the term design methods, but there are too many interpretations of its meaning and application. Maybe the paragraph could go in the last section?
I will put directed discontent back in (Design Methods 13:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

Looks like you guys are doing a great job continuing to discuss things :) A couple of comments to help clarify some things:

I can understand placing information about the term's origination in the lead paragraph, however, I seriously question the statement that Jones wrote the only book on the subject. There are many different definitions of design methods and each should have its place in the article. Like the feature article example I pointed out earlier in the discussion, sections should briefly cover the topic at hand and if more in depth information exists, link to a "main article" for that subject.

A little more information about using links in the article. Design methods, you seem to be a bit confused about what needs to be linked and what doesn't. We do not need links to the publishers of books; if there is a Wikipedia article on the book, we can link there and, as Ronz noted, we usually try to have the ISBN available should readers wish to find the book themselves. We also do not link to any site that sells or promotes the book. The link to Wiley is probably only appropriate on an article about the company itself and has little context elsewhere. When placing an external link, its important that the link contain a wealth of information about the subject too detailed for inclusion in the article.

Another note about using edit summaries: When you leave the edit summary field blank, other editors are left guessing about your changes and your intentions. Its especially important when actively working on an article with other editors since it assists in the collaborative effort. See Help:Edit summary for more information about why its strongly suggested that you always fill this field in. Shell babelfish 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Jones did write the only book on design methods. If you search the web, most of the books on design methods relates it to a discipline such as engineering, and even there they refer back to JCJ book. This is not grandstanding, it is a fact. This should not infer, however that JCJ is the only person interested in design methods or the authority on the subject.
As for linking to the publisher, you are correct and we should have used the ISBN number instead. As for the other links, they are of relevance as they go deeper into the particular subject. Ronz suggested that we link more to JCJ softopia website articles about design methods, which we have done.
As for using the comment fields, you are correct and we have started to do this again. (Design Methods 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC))
So you dont think any of the books listd in Design strategies and methods in interaction design besides Jones' are about design methods? --Ronz 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The link you have just suggested, "Design strategies and methods in interaction design: the past, present, and future" is not specifically about design methods. If you read the abstract from the conference discussed "understanding and application of design strategies and methods [DS&M] for the development of user interfaces." The books and authors are mostly about software engineering. Ironically, John Chris Jones books is mentioned, and Nigel Cross is listed with his "Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design," which is closer. Design Methods is broader than just software development, though software developers were the first group to latch onto design methods in terms of development of technology. (Design Methods 17:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC))
I disagree. The topic of the workshop I've linked to is most certainly about design methods. How can you think otherwise? What I'm asking is about the books, most which are actually not about software development at all. Are you even reading the information I'm presenting? --Ronz 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry we are in disagreement, and yes, if you read my comment, I specifically discuss the books in the references section. I am also getting concerned about your comments crossing the line in terms of abusive behavior. I would suggest you review the WP:CIV or WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA or WP:ATTACK guidelines. We appreciate your efforts, but at times your comments are inappropriate. (Design Methods 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC))
Sorry if you think so. Best you point out on my talk page exactly what you find so uncivil, or back off and stay on topic.
So you're saying all 20 books are about software development? --Ronz 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
To hearken back to Lead section, Design Methods is not beholden to one discipline or problem domain. "Design strategies and methods in interaction design: the past, present, and future" specifically addresses design methods for computer-human interaction/interaction design. --Design Methods Advocate 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I just think you're both reading into this, while avoiding my questions about the books. I'm asking what you think and why because I'm biased in that I know a great deal more about this workshop that what is available in the article. I participated in the workshop and know both Prof. Branham and Alp Tiritoglu. www.methodagent.com comes directly from their work. --Ronz 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that all of you have a considerable amount invested in this article, but I think I need to point out Wikipedia's policies on conflicts of interest. It might be best if everyone with a vested interest in this article took a step back and considered whether or not they comply with those guidelines. I understand how very hard it is to walk away from something you care about deeply, but these types of difficulties are exactly why the policy exists. Shell babelfish 08:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation. I have, throghout the development of this article endeavored to develop a relevant an inclusive discussion on design methods. I have reviewed both the conflict of interest and neutral point of view guidelines and feel that I have worked within these guidelines. If you read my bio, it states who I am and what my interests are. I do not feel like this article is being obsessed over, but do feel that we are not sure of Ronz' intentions (since there is no information about him on Wiki) and have been responding to his queries. (Design Methods 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
I've disclosed all I feel I need to. I've repeatedly discussed why I'm interested in this article - making it encyclopedic. I am a bit curious about your disclosure that you represent and speak for "a small group that is working on this topic and is helping with both Wiki and another project". --Ronz 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I also feel no policies were breached. We, Design Methods and I, as collaborators have taken pride in composing article and doing our best, especially Design Methods's efforts, to making it compliant as possible to Wikipedia's standards. Height of this Discussion testifies to this ever-growing thread, giving aura that article is controversial. Or does it simply boild down to craft? In going through Discussion few times over, I don't see Ronz's repeated interests in article. I/We appreciate Ronz's prompts in upping article's quality according to Wikipedia's conditions and we are learning and applying as much as possible. Persistent question I have is: Who is Ronz? Speaking of disclosure. --Design Methods Advocate 04:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Give it a break. My interests are my own. My identity too. I'm here to work on this article. If you're not happy with that answer, sorry, but you're pressuring me for more information is inappropriate. --Ronz 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ronz. I suggest if there are issues that have nothing to do with the content of the article that you post your comments on talk pages of individual contributors, not the article. Let's move past personality issues and focus on content.(Design Methods 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
You mean like issues of who I am and what my interests and intentions are? The issues I'm forced to defend here because you two bring them up? --Ronz 17:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No comment. (Design Methods 17:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] More on Design Methods

Would these references count as books and articles on design methods? Design strategies and methods in interaction design. There are some familiar names and books in the list. What do you think of http://www.methodagent.com/? --Ronz 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a great find and we really appreciate you finding it!. We have contacted the developer and they are in clear alignment to what we are doing. We would also like to have a link on the wikipedia article. (Design Methods 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for finding references. Out of the two, MethodAgent is an excellent find and therefore very appropriate. It is in alignment with Design Methods article. --Design Methods Advocate 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Other books:

  • K. Krippendorf 'The Semantic Turn: A new foundation for design' (CRC Press, 2006)
  • C. Nemeth 'Human Factors Methods for Design: Making systems human-centered' (CRC Press, 2004)
  • K. Ulrich & S. Eppinger 'Product Design and Development' (3rd edn., McGraw Hill, 2003)

--Ronz 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting titles but I cannot judge these by titles alone. Can you please provide line(s) on why these books are relevant to Design Methods? Thanks. --Design Methods Advocate 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Because they were recommended sources for the article by Nigel Cross. --Ronz 20:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see Nigel Cross's recommendation in Discussion. --Design Methods Advocate 15:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You asked why there were relevant. I told you there were recommendations by Nigel Cross. --Ronz 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Book suggestions are very helpful. It would be further helpful to understand how suggested book titles directly link back to design methods. Nigel Cross' book was added to the books section of the article since his role in the development of design methods has a long track record. We also need to keep in mind that design methods is nort just limited to software enineering, and is inclusive of all areas of inquiry and discipline based on the definition at the top of the article. That definition should guide our efforts. (Design Methods 16:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
You are missing the point. I'm no longer following or trusting your perspectives on design methods, after your repeated assertions about Jones' book and the workshop I attended. Your unverified opinions are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Instead, I'm doing the research myself and relying upon known experts. I turned to Nigel Cross and can provide documentation to show that if necessary. I think the time has come to stop treating this article as if you WP:OWN it and all edits must be approved by you. The books don't need Cross' recommendation to be relevant - their content should be enough. Krippendorf's is a great source from what I've seen of it so far. Nemeth's doesn't have the same extent, but I'm still very impressed with it as well. I haven't seen Ulrich & Eppinger yet. --Ronz 17:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe we are missing the point and am sorry to hear your current perspective. I believe all contributors have honorable intentions and want a good overview of this topic. I do not believe that the article is unverified, and the documentation and vetting has shown it. I visited Nigel's talk page and the books he suggested focusing on product design and development are helpful. He does readily admit that they are product-centric and that there are other books he may not be aware of. I hope that Nigel Cross will eventually articulate specific ways to improve the design methods article as that is what Wiki is all about. As for the books he recommended, it would be helpful to identify specific content from these books that you find relevant and they can be integrated into the article content. (Design Methods 18:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Revised Opening

Opening before Contents was revised and made more cohesive for better clarity. --Design Methods Advocate 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First section of background (and history) was condensed. --Design Methods Advocate 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)