Search

The Legal Design movement has succeeded in proposing change to communities through collaboration between the legal and design professions. As a result, new kinds of empathetic solutions have been introduced where the citizen experience is prioritized over commercial goals. Still missing from Legal Design, however, is a stronger understanding of current theoretical literature in design that is questioning the ontology of the discipline and formulating new scenarios of transition toward the future. This paper encourages an embrace of these methodologies and cautions against their use without a solid understanding of the present and a real understanding of their potential effects. The methods of “futuring” used by designers can help the legal profession imagine better futures with a view toward implementation. These futures keep the moral compass straight for leaders whose exercise of power leads to injustice and how people can have access to justice, governance, and accountability within difficult situations.

The way humans approach food systems not only affects our survival but also creates or destroys futures for humans and nonhuman species alike. Rooted in a rights-based approach, food as a commons offers an important and robust economic alternative to food as a commodity. The commons literature also struggles with anthropocentrism, however, particularly the recognized analytical frameworks used by scholars that classify nonhuman nature as inputs. How can user research tools support communities to create a more-than-human food commons that treats nonhuman nature as equal actants? This paper responds to this question by adapting two user research tools to support a community to create the building blocks of a food commons with nonhuman nature as equal actants. These user research tools are tested in a workshop with commons scholars to assess how well they support more-than-human thinking against recognized commons analytical frameworks.

The overarching theme for this Conversation was How can we communicate the value of Design Research? This was accompanied by the more specific question, How we can get Design Research into ‘Research Methods 101’? At the Conversa-tion, which was attended by approximately 30 participants, five groups were formed, and a ‘Question Bridge’ format was adopted to explore these themes—a structure which uses question and answers pairs to explore challenges and miti-gation strategies around the theme. The Question Bridge exercise demonstrated that there are clear divisions and contrasting perspectives in the Design Research community. The subsequent plenary discussion showed that while divisions are evident, any disruption caused by the lacking consensus can be straightforwardly mitigated by acknowledging contrasts and adopting deliberate communication strategies to clarify them.

This paper draws on a pilot study insight into Brazilian informal-settlement communities’ problems, adaptative strategies and needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although communities play a noteworthy role in resilience, emergency and recovery plans often lack sufficient community engagement. This contributes to leaving particularly disadvantaged communities behind. Inequalities were further exacerbated during the pandemic, urging the deployment of plural and sustainable measures, which can promote equity in a global health crisis. Design can play a meaningful role in tackling inequalities in emergency and recovery. However, this role of design is still under-researched in resilience. We expand on related work analyses to draw on key design capabilities for the development of dialogic practices and policies aiming to contribute to designing effective participation of communities in decision-making processes. These key design capabilities support the development of dialogic design practices and policies by enhancing and supporting collaboration and communication throughout policy co-design.

To balance production needs with the need to sustain or regenerate the health of ocean ecosystems, stakeholders in the European fish and seafood sector are calling for transition to a circular economy. New industry methods will produce fish-based foods that consumers are not accustomed to eating so we ask, what will it take for consumers to adopt these industrial circular economy foods? Taking the Seafood Age consortium product prototype as a basis, we have created a design method for would-be consumers to reflect on their fish consumption practices and possible adoption of the fish product prototype prompted by a de-sign speculation. This paper reports on insights emerging from the research and recommendations for product adoption amongst consumers in the UK. Our findings have implications for food designers, design researchers and fish and sea-food, plus more broadly food industry stakeholders concerned with circular economy product and method adoption in industry.

Data visualization can be powerful in enabling us to make sense of complex data. Expressive data representation – where individuals have control over the nature of the output – is hard to incorporate into existing frameworks and techniques for visualization. The power of informal, rough, expressive sketches in working out ideas is well documented. This points to an opportunity to better understand how expressivity can exist in data visualization creation. We explore the expressive potential of Data Painting through a study aimed at improving our understanding of what people need and make use of in creating novel examples of data expression. Participants use exact measures of paint for data-mapping and then explore the expressive possibilities of free-form data representation. Our intentions are to improve our understanding of expressivity in data visualization; to raise questions as to the creation and use of non-traditional data visualizations; and to suggest directions for expressivity in visualization.

Currently self-tracking systems, that sense and infer data about an individual or ‘the self’, focus on gathering quantitative data about the body. The social features present in these systems measure data about the body against other bodies or ‘the other’. However, focus on these metrics is causing harm. In this paper we discuss relations between the self and the other and more-than-human perspectives to pose questions for moving beyond the body and acknowledging potential harm in self-tracking systems. Throughout we draw on work from across Design Research, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Philosophy and Sociology, to high-light challenges and opportunities for Designers in the self-tracking space and discuss how the future of these systems needs to change.

Locally, nationally and internationally, Social Innovations (SI) are increasingly seen as a way to address the complex problems posed by society. Emphasised by both funding bodies and in UK legislation and initiatives such as Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 and Social Impact Bonds, there is a greater urgency in evidencing the value generated by SIs. However, the process of measuring and evidencing social value is still underdeveloped. This necessitates developing evaluation approaches that are adaptive, responsive to context, and able to demonstrate value beyond financial return. This paper presents an overview of the current evaluation methods employed to capture the social value generated by SI’s and examines the problems with these methods. Furthermore, it reviews Creative Evaluation (CE), a constellation of evaluation approaches, which has recently garnered renewed attention in evaluation research, and presents it as a promising avenue that could help mitigate the current issues faced when evaluating SI’s.

The five papers in the DRS 2022 track “AI and the Conditions of Design: Towards A New Set of Design Ideals” offer radical lenses to change the narrative around AI and open pathways towards pluralist digital futures, signaling redirections for experimenting with more inclusive and imaginative design practices.

This paper examines the emerging field of Legal Design through a critical reflection on the literature on academic disciplines and disciplinarity and argues that Legal Design does meet the criteria for recognition as an emerging academic sub-discipline. Its central contention is that Legal Design academics (together with their collaborative partners) have a timely opportunity to intentionally design the modalities of their nascent discipline. Academic disciplines can be understood in various ways. Whether this is, for example, from a sociological or an anthropological perspective, Legal Design has the chance to examine the human experience of disciplinarity and to consciously build an academic discipline that works for its users, be they academic practitioners, students or wider professional communities.

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of current practices and approaches to co-designing services with and for people living with early to mid-stage dementia to derive a set of principles and practices for application in the IDoService project. It explores the understanding of service design and of co-design for the purposes of this paper, and then uses a meta-review of co-design of services for people with dementia, underpinned by a selection of case studies from the literature to extract and collate a set of key principles of best practice. We then consider the application of these principles and practices for the development of the IDoService to discuss implications and benefits of this approach for designing services.

In this paper, we explore the use of metaphors for people working with artificial intelligence, in particular those that support designers in thinking about the creation of AI systems. Metaphors both illuminate and hide, simplifying and connecting to existing knowledge, centring particular ideas, marginalising others, and shaping fields of practice. The practices of machine learning and artificial intelligence draw heavily on metaphors, whether black boxes, or the idea of learn-ing and training, but at the edges of the field, as design engages with computational practices, it is not always apparent which terms are used metaphorically, and which associations can be safely drawn on. In this paper, we look at some of the ways metaphors are deployed around machine learning and ask about where they might lead us astray. We then develop some qualities of useful metaphors, and finally explore a small collection of helpful metaphors and practices that illuminate different aspects of machine learning in a way that can support design thinking., Human Information Communication Design

What if things had a voice? What if we could talk directly to things instead of using a mediating voice interface such as an Alexa or a Google Assistant? In this paper, we share our insights from talking to a pair of boots, a tampon, a perfume bottle, and toilet paper among other everyday things to explore their conversational capabilities. We conducted Thing Interviews using a more-than-human design approach to discover a thing’s perspectives, worldviews and its relations to other humans and nonhumans. Based on our analysis of the speculative conversations, we identified some themes characterizing the emergent qualities of people’s relationships with everyday things. We believe the themes presented in the paper may inspire future research on designing everyday things with conversational capabilities at home., Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository ‘You share, we take care!’ – Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public., Human Information Communication Design, Design Aesthetics

What if things had a voice? What if we could talk directly to things instead of using a mediating voice interface such as an Alexa or a Google Assistant? In this paper, we share our insights from talking to a pair of boots, a tampon, a perfume bottle, and toilet paper among other everyday things to explore their conversational capabilities. We conducted Thing Interviews using a more-than-human design approach to discover a thing's perspectives, worldviews and its relations to other humans and nonhumans. Based on our analysis of the speculative conversations, we identified some themes characterizing the emergent qualities of people's relationships with everyday things. We believe the themes presented in the paper may inspire future research on designing everyday things with conversational capabilities at home.

Over the last decade, design for behaviour change has become increasingly recognised as a strategy for enabling social change. Despite this, we are far from understanding its implementation, especially through the private and public sectors. This study has surveyed private and public sector stakeholders with regard to their current knowledge of, and approach to, design for behaviour change. The aim was to identify the challenges for professional stakeholders in understanding, accessing and implementing design for behaviour change. Underpinned by a literature review of design for behaviour change theories and approaches, an online survey and two focus groups with private and public sector stakeholders were conducted with particular focus on small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). The results identified that there is a significant disconnect between available theoretical knowledge of design for behaviour change and its practical implementation. Reasons for this include a lack of awareness and common language, of evidence based examples, and of evaluation methods and inter-sector collaborations. In response, a set of recommendations has been developed to propose ways forward for the wider understanding and application of design for behaviour change.

Over the last decade, design for behaviour change has become increasingly recognised as a strategy for enabling social change. Despite this, we are far from understanding its implementation, especially through the private and public sectors. This study has surveyed private and public sector stakeholders with regard to their current knowledge of, and approach to, design for behaviour change. The aim was to identify the challenges for professional stakeholders in understanding, accessing and implementing design for behaviour change. Underpinned by a literature review of design for behaviour change theories and approaches, an online survey and two focus groups with private and public sector stakeholders were conducted with particular focus on small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). The results identified that there is a significant disconnect between available theoretical knowledge of design for behaviour change and its practical implementation. Reasons for this include a lack of awareness and common language, of evidence based examples, and of evaluation methods and inter-sector collaborations. In response, a set of recommendations has been developed to propose ways forward for the wider understanding and application of design for behaviour change., Design Aesthetics

Open Planning is a Liverpool-based project aiming to empower and engage citizens in the local planning process, through a mobile phone app which improves communication channels with local authorities.

Design is a significant driver of behaviour change, enabling, encouraging or discouraging particular practices from taking place. Despite design’s clear influence on behaviours, no overarching framework exists for the effective implementation of Design for Behaviour Change (DfBC) in professional and public contexts. This paper takes a first step to synthesizing current models and approaches of DfBC, covering the thematics of ecological sustainability, safety, health and well-being, and social design. The review is supported by a range of case studies that illustrate the role of DfBC as a driver for sustainable innovation for small and medium size businesses (SME). The objective is to develop a better understanding of how to stimulate ecological and social innovations in SMEs that enable lasting behaviourchange. The findings of the review highlight opportunities and challenges for the effectiveimplementation of sustainable innovation through DfBC, in particular the lack of a holistic evidence base of the current understanding and application of DfBC.

Design is a significant driver of behaviour change, enabling, encouraging or discouraging particular practices from taking place. Despite design’s clear influence on behaviours, no overarching framework exists for the effective implementation of Design for Behaviour Change (DfBC) in professional and public contexts. This paper takes a first step to synthesizing current models and approaches of DfBC, covering the thematics of ecological sustainability, safety, health and well-being, and social design. The review is supported by a range of case studies that illustrate the role of DfBC as a driver for sustainable innovation for small and medium size businesses (SME). The objective is to develop a better understanding of how to stimulate ecological and social innovations in SMEs that enable lasting behaviourchange. The findings of the review highlight opportunities and challenges for the effectiveimplementation of sustainable innovation through DfBC, in particular the lack of a holistic evidence base of the current understanding and application of DfBC.

Influencing more environmentally friendly and sustainable behaviour is a current focus of many projects, ranging from government social marketing campaigns, education and tax structures to designers’ work on interactive products, services and environments. There is a wide variety of techniques and methods used—we have identified over 100 design patterns in our Design with Intent toolkit—each intended to work via a particular set of cognitive and environmental principles. These approaches make different assumptions about ‘what people are like’: how users will respond to behavioural interventions, and why, and in the process reveal some of the assumptions that designers and other stakeholders, such as clients commissioning a project, make about human nature. In this paper, we discuss three simple models of user behaviour—the Pinball, the Shortcut and the Thoughtful—which emerge from user experience designers’ statements about users while focused on designing for behaviour change. We characterise these models using systems terminology and examine the application of each model to design for sustainable behaviour via a series of examples.

The Architectural Lens draws on techniques used to influence user behaviour in architecture, urban planning and related disciplines such as traffic management and crime prevention through environmental design (see also the Security Lens). While most of the techniques have been developed in the built environment, many of the ideas can also be applied in interaction and product design, even in software or services; they are effectively about using the 'structure of systems' to influence behaviour. Some of the patterns, such as Simplicity, Feature deletion and Hiding things are really fundamental to all kinds of design.

Even though inclusion is a well-researched subject in design, the numerous ways to describe and understand it are unsettled. The theoretical landscape often leads into paradoxes about how to best practice inclusion in design development processes. Instead, this study probes present-day understandings of designing inclusively from the perspective of practitioners who adopt an inclusive approach. A review of existing literature helped formulate preliminary notions that guide discussions with practitioners recruited across different domains. Iterative analysis of the data from these interviews reveals some differences between the original theoretical constructs and how they are perceived and used in practice. This paper outlines the notions reformed through practitioners’ lived experiences: They are Proof of Logic, Governing Ways of Thinking, User Accessibility, Project Constraints, User Involvement, Design Stages, and Outcomes and Impact. The research can help untangle the issues that matter to practitioners which can ultimately help inform future practice.

The studio remains central to design education as a shared place, practice and even concept. And yet studio persists as an ill-defined entity: a complex puzzle composed of thousands of diverse jigsaw parts constructed by teachers and students, with no definitive list of parts. Given this background, it was opportune to review the landscape of studio, both in terms of research and practice. In 2020, this study brought together an invited collective of design educators from the USA, Australia, UK, Swe- den, Spain, Iran, and Germany, experienced in the research and operation of design studios in education to explore these issues. Expert elicitation, conducted over several months illuminated the critical values, questions, and themes of studio to foreground and inform future research studies in this field. The authors approached this study through the lens of thematic analysis and collaborative autoethnography. Later, they determined their own subjective narratives as they reflected on the themes relevant to their individual studio research interests. These narratives briefly examined studio through the lens of sensory affect and the inclusiveness of the design studio. The emer- gent themes from this study have implications for both studio research and practice: identifying a plurality of the boundaries of studio today.

The paper explores the hypothesis that access to places that enhance capabilities for co-design work across sectors, is an important vehicle for incubating and supporting civic leadership. More specifically, the paper reports insights from a study which created ‘cross-pollination’ spaces to bring together academic and non-academic individuals from different backgrounds, disciplines, and sectors to explore the notion of incubating civic leadership and to develop pop-up interventions to test ideas for incubating civic leadership in two locations in the UK. Drawing on the reflections of participants collected through group reflection spaces and through individual interviews, the study identifies a number of common themes which help understand the value of cross-pollination spaces, but also the barriers and enablers of civic design leadership. As such, the study contributes to both the theory and practice of co-design within and with communities across sectors.

Even though inclusion is a well-researched subject in design, the numerous ways to describe and understand it are unsettled. The theoretical landscape often leads into paradoxes about how to best practice inclusion in design development processes. Instead, this study probes present-day understandings of designing inclusively from the perspective of practitioners who adopt an inclusive approach. A review of existing literature helped formulate preliminary notions that guide discussions with practitioners recruited across different domains. Iterative analysis of the data from these interviews reveals some differences between the original theoretical constructs and how they are perceived and used in practice. This paper outlines the notions reformed through practitioners’ lived experiences: They are Proof of Logic, Governing Ways of Thinking, User Accessibility, Project Constraints, User Involvement, Design Stages, and Outcomes and Impact. The research can help untangle the issues that matter to practitioners which can ultimately help inform future practice.

The present paper explores the notion of co-design as healing by focusing on a project with participants facing mental health problems, who met once a week, guided by open design processes. Reflecting on semi structured interview data, as well as relevant literature from different disciplines, the paper offers a conceptual framing of how co-design can be considered as a healing practice, at a systems, social and individual level. At a systems level, co-design allows working with complexity, and approaching mental health problems holistically. At a social level, co-design empowers collectives to negotiate what realities to change and how. At an individual level, codesign affects people’s wellbeing, by enhancing their sense of agency and connection, stimulating thinking and essentially providing a grounding embodied experience. The paper offers a lens through which to reflect and expand on what we do as designers, and supports the notion of co-design as healing with initial evidence from one project.