- Email: [email protected]
AD 1980–1990–2000: retrospect and prospect
Comment AD 1980- 1990- 2000: retrospect and prospect The decade of the 1980s neatly defines the period when the power base of the Design lobby in Britain, and the location of the greater part of Design Research activity, moved decisively from the architectural and industrial design academic and professional establishments to the engineering establishment. In Britain, thirty five years earlier, the Design lobby had risen to prominence of the crest of a political and economic campaign to encourage the rebuilding of the British consumer goods manufacturing industries at the end of the Second World War. The campaign was masterminded by the goverment financed Council of Industrial Design, and was focussed upon great exhibitions such as Britain can make it and The Festival of Britain 1951. The majority of the activists in these campaigns were architects or industrial designers or both. Not surprisingly, the professional and teaching institutions in architecture and industrial design benefited enormously, in prestige and in the enjoyment of government financial support. Sadly, the engineering establishment of the day in Britain was actively hostile to the Design lobby. Industrial design was superficial, declared the engineering professors. Even engineering design, they said, was not a real discipline. To be more precise, they argued that engineering, which was the application of scientific reasoning to the resolution of practical problems, was a real discipline, but that design was not. Or to put it another way, the configuration and construction of an engineering product emerged from attention to engineering. The central concern of engineering was the application of scientific knowledge. The notion that some separately recognisable activity, called designing, intervened between the engineering and the product was ridiculous. It was even more ridiculous to give credit to art trained industrial designers for having 'designed' products when they had merely dressed them up in house colours and styling. Thus, in Britain at any rate, few engineers (your present author amongst them) became involved in the Design lobby and/or in the Design Research movement in the 1950s and 1960s. One notable exception was Robert Feilden, whose report Engineering design to the then Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in 1963 on the reform of engineering education strongly advocated placing design at the centre of the engineering curriculum. However, this report was largely ignored by the engineering establishment. The schools of architecture and the schools of art and design retained the high ground in public relations regarding Design throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, and enjoyed the
Vol 11 No 4 October 1990
lion's share of government funding. To be blunt, it was the hostile and/or sceptical attitudes of academics in the engineering schools that obliged me, a mechanical engineer, to occupy the greater part of my career in the study of decision making in design by locating my postgraduate and externally funded research in schools of art and in departments of architecture. The 1970s saw a change in heart on the part of the engineering establishment. Authoritative engineering voices were increasingly heard to support the Feilden argument. It thus became more widely acknowledged that, whilst engineering education and practice remained fumly based on the application of scientific knowledge, engineering was nevertheless centrally concerned with, and ultimately directed towards, design. The 1970s also saw a change in the political and economic climate, and the diminution of government finance for promotional bodies, such as the Council of Industrial Design. In the interests of survival, the engineering and the industrial design lobbies joined forces to convert the old Council of Industrial Design into a new Design Council, with parallel but separate divisions for the support of engineering design and industrial design, respectively. Shortly after the General Election of 1979, the incoming government 'rediscovered' Design as a key to British industrial prosperity, and set the stage for the Design revolution of the 1980s, which is what I really wanted to comment upon. This time, Design was perceived by the politicians to be predominantly an engineering matter. And this time, the engineering establishment, led by the Science and Engineering Research Council, was better poised to rise to the occasion. A whole catalogue of reports, initiatives, links, grants, teaching programme endorsements, new chairs in engineering design and support schemes for design in industry poured out between 1980 and 1989, led and promoted by distinguished engineers and industrialists. At the Design Council, the parallel structures for the promotion of engineering design and industrial design respectively were swept away, to be replaced by a single structure, for the most part dominated by engineering interests. In the USA, in 1985, following the conduct of a special enquiry led by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers into Goals and priorities for research in engineering design: A report to the Design Research Community, the National Science Foundation offered annual substantial grants for research into design under its newly created Design theory and methodology program. Needless to say, American university departments of engineering have been quick to include design
183
methods research and design methods teaching in their curricula. On the international scale, wider tendencies, such as the globalization of manufacturing and marketing, and the growing importance of quality assurance, have reinforced the dominance of engineering in design. Unhappily, the same political and economic forces that had caused the British government to espouse design for the second time, had also led them to make massive cuts in tax payers' funding for the arts and social sciences• The art and design schools, along with the museums and the performing arts, were badly hit and departments of industrial design were able to benefit only marginally, if at all, from government Design funding. By ill chance, architecture was getting a bad press at the time, for different reasons, and the old alliance had melted away. Thus, by 1989, the displacement of the architectural and industrial design establishments from their former preeminence was complete. What of the next decade, the 1990s? Revolutions are hard to predict. I will not venture even to try. The constants may be easier to foresee. I would be very surprised indeed to see engineering design lose its power base as the centre of the Design lobby in the next ten years. I would be less surprised to see the role of the industrial designer becoming less distinctive. I have never quite understood why industrial designers in their heyday so vigorously denied that styling was a significant part of what they did. Contributing importantly to the success of a product by making it distinctive, convenient and attractive to the purchaser has always seemed to me to be a perfectly respectable professional activity deman-
ding great skills and sensitivity, worthy of respect and worthy of appropriate reward. Had they been less jumpy about it, the art and design schools migl~t have done better in their years of dominance to have built a scholarly basis for a unique role in styling and other marketing and human factors, on the lines of the new discipline of Product Semantics, instead of vying with the engineers for the role of comprehensive designer. As it is, a number of engineering school have learned to produce graduates who are entirely proficient in the techniques of styling and presentation in addition to being qualified in engineering science and engineering design. In some industrial design offices, where mixed disciplinary teams are the order of the day, industrial designers and engineers are barely distinguishable from one another. My own feeling is that the next decade will again be dominated by global issues, such as the environment, pollution, overpopulation, third world poverty, public liability and public participation in decision making in planning and design. Such issues will bring other professionals into the design coalition, and will expose all their values and competencies to wider criticism. Significantly, these are precisely the issues that were current when the Design Research Society was founded and which have been largely forgotten since. Plus c'a change • . . ! Maybe there really is something in that theory of thirty year cycles.
Bruce Archer
the future of good intentions Invited to write my memories and expectations of design research I begin by designing the writing process. I decide to look back with the aid of three texts 1-3 which have helped me in the past and to look forward with the aid of my most recent writing. The Electric Book 4, a fiction that I hope to continue into the new millennium. The first text from the past is the book of Chuang Tsu who is the only philosopher I know to write humorously and whose writing I enjoy more than most. The next is George Sturt's description of craftwork which showed me how marvellous designs could be made without designers or any of the specialists whom we think essential today. The third is a lecture by Gertrude Stein which led me to pay more attention to words and which I gather was written as she watched her car engine being dismantled and put together. That apparently was her inspiration.
an example of what I want to say: that designing could be the work of everyone, but it is not work, it can be enjoyed and it depends upon the readers, or users (as we call ourselves in our roles at the receiving end) as we decide and create the meaning or the purpose for ourselves beyond what a writer or designer can foresee.
The process tells me to write paragraphs of equal length5 to quotations selected partly by chance from these sources until the article is of the length requested by the editor. This will I hope make the writing and the reading
When I try to recall why I took to designing I remember being irritated by the design of almost everything and especially by the lack of consideration for the users, the people whom, one might think, the designs were for. My
184
Notwithstanding the greatness of heaven and earth, their transforming power proceeds from one lathe; notwithstanding the number of myriad things, the government of them is one and the same; notwithstanding the multitude of mankind, the lord of them is their (one) ruler. The ruler's (course) should proceed from the qualities (of the Tao) and can be perfected by Heaven, when it is so, it is called 'Mysterious and Sublime'. The ancients ruled the world by doing nothing;- simply by this attribute of Heaven. 1
DESIGN STUDIES
earliest attempts (in the forties & fifties) were to enter competitions ~or the design of cars, bath taps, electrical plugs and sockets, and the like. In each case I noted ways in which these things were not well adaptated to people and made new designs in which this adaptation was I hope improved. The mirror is now in place and the void is closed off. The librarian found it and fixed it for the ornaments with a few strokes of her steady fingers. Now we are ready, she declares, to lighten the shadows and to soften the highlights, we are ready for the preamble to the occupation of the middle ground. Light and dark are too extreme, what we need is chiaroscuro, or the moral equivalent of marriage. 4 In those days I think I saw designing as a unique occupation which allowed one to correct the mistakes of the past and to undo the gross inhumanity of everything industrial, everything which was marked by the narrow thinking of the mechanical age. I remember reading books by Frank Lloyd Wright, Henry Dreyfuss and Lewis Mumford and looking for what was later called ergonomics. Those who had been duly apprenticed were wont to say, in my shop, that a man learnt more as an 'Improver', in the first twelve months after his apprentiship was over, than in all the six or seven years of 'serving time'. Although there may have been some swank about this, I think there was some truth too. It was not only that an improver was liable to be discharged, and had to try at last to work well, if he had never tried before. This was what the skilled men chiefly meant, and it was true. A youth, turning from apprentice to improver, must now prove his worth or 'get the sack'. But more than this: experienced judgment was called for in many jobs that an apprentice could hardly be trusted to do, and this the elder men understood. The case was probably the same in other trades. A watch-maker assured me that, while it was comparatively easy for a youth at a technical school to make a new watch, the test of a true workman was at the repairing bench. Certainly this applied to wheelwrights. A machine could turn out a wheel - of sorts but to mend one required, in many cases, long experience. Because this was so, I learnt to dislike employing either an old pensioner from the army or a young boy from a technical class. The soldier (besides being usually out of the habit of steady work) could not bring any experience of his own to bear and was afraid to move without orders. The army had killed his initiative. The boy, on the other hand, with no experience at all, was wont to think he already knew enough. He would not be told, and he was too vain to learn the lessons constantly coming from repairs. 2 I got into what later was called design methods by accident. What I was looking for was a way to make engineering design more sensitive to the requirements of people. I was fed up with the way in which engineers
Vol 11 No 4 October 1990
could always say to an ergonomist 'but you can't put enough space here, or there, to properly accommodate the operator of the thing, it has already been decided that an essential bit of equipment has to occupy that space', or some such argument. So I studied the way the engineers made these decisions that ignored the operator until it was too late. From what I learnt I proposed a systematic method in which human requirements and all others could be adequately explored before the main decisions were made. In doing this I discovered that I was not the only one trying to improve design processes. In particular there was Peter Slann 6 at Imperial College and he and I found that there were enough people interested to call the 1962 conference. Thereafter I got drawn more into design methods than into ergonomics, particularly as there was by then a wish to give academic degrees for design. The universities could not accept mere drawing as evidence of research so 'methodology', as it is called, was taken as a way to make designing academic. So I got drawn into teaching design at universities and it was then that my view of design widened. I began to see that, if this increasingly designed world is to become more human, less mechanical, we have to find ways to share the process 'with everyone'. But how? Difficult question. We may first have to change the culture. But marriage is the moral equivalent of everything, says the mother, not knowing what's made her say that and looking with horror at the tv where the story of her present life and speech is happening before everyone, but in these words that someone else is w r i t i n g . . . 4 At this point, having completed the book Design Methods (which was meant as my goodbye present to the profession), I became interested in randomness and this led me to write pieces like this in which intention is over-ridden by chance and the text is open to other things. There is singularly nothing that makes a difference a difference in beginning and in the middle and in ending except that each generation has something different at which they are all looking. By this I mean so simply that anybody knows it that composition is the difference which makes each and all of them different from other generations and this is what makes everything different otherwise they are all alike and everybody knows it because everybody says it. 3 So now, what do I hope for the future of design research? I'd like professional designing to be replaced by what I call "depending on everyone ''7. And I'd like the rational part of designing, the results of research, to become publicly accessible software while the creative part, the practical experience, the 'improving', becomes what everyone does to live, as each of us does when we speak. There was a time when only scribes could write but now it is almost universal. Oh dear, she cries, this is terrible, it's worse than seeing
185
phantoms, as she experiences the fate of being a character in a book. There's absolutely nothing you can do, she says, you just have to wait to be written as the story moves on in some way you'd never choose. Get me out, get me out, and the family as well of course, let's leave this nightmare, take us home, take us home. 4 But do not worry, mother, we're not pulling life to pieces we're putting it together. What you are feeling now is the shock of being released from passivity. Put your fingers on the keys and you can write you own story, the experts are no longer in command. I f you can write a letter you can write a book. You can help to make a world in which you feel at home everywhere. But we are at home dear mother, says the little girl politely, and it's interesting to read this as we live it, don't turn it off. T o me there is no difference between obeying parents or authors, they all want to mould you in patterns that are dead. 4 And as he comes to the end of this he wonders who is writing it, and who for, and why he is so far away now from the world of design which once he knew so well. Hush, for that was not you, not me, it was a ghost. The present moment is the life.
notes and references I decided to take the first paragraphs of whatever
186
chapters were selected by random n u m b e r from references 1 & 2, the first paragraph of refereoce 3, and the first and successive paragraphs of reference 4. ,These decisions and numbers determined the sequence of the quotations.
Chuang Tzu 'The writings of Chuang Tzu' in Legge, J (translator) The texts of taoism, part 1 Dover Publications Ltd, New York (1962) p 330 Sturt G The wheelwright's shop Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK (1923) p 175 Stein G 'Composition as explanation' in Stein G (edited by Meyerowitz P) Look at me now and here I am Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex (1971) p 21
Jones J C The electric book. volume 5 The first draft is to be published in a CD-ROM disc, (apply to the author for publication details, they have not arrived as I write this) Chapter 13. My paragraphs, when translated into the format of Design Studies, may not be exactly equal to the lengths of the quotations. Slann P A Forword to Conference on design methods (edited by Jones J C and Thorniey D G) Pergammon Press, Oxford, 1963, p xi
Jones J C advised and assisted by Pedretti A, Williams S, Wetton B, Ferney K, Brown M, Depending on everyone, Design Studies Vol 11 No 4 (October 1990) pp 187-194 John Chris Jones
DESIGN STUDIES
Vol 11 No 4 October 1990
lion's share of government funding. To be blunt, it was the hostile and/or sceptical attitudes of academics in the engineering schools that obliged me, a mechanical engineer, to occupy the greater part of my career in the study of decision making in design by locating my postgraduate and externally funded research in schools of art and in departments of architecture. The 1970s saw a change in heart on the part of the engineering establishment. Authoritative engineering voices were increasingly heard to support the Feilden argument. It thus became more widely acknowledged that, whilst engineering education and practice remained fumly based on the application of scientific knowledge, engineering was nevertheless centrally concerned with, and ultimately directed towards, design. The 1970s also saw a change in the political and economic climate, and the diminution of government finance for promotional bodies, such as the Council of Industrial Design. In the interests of survival, the engineering and the industrial design lobbies joined forces to convert the old Council of Industrial Design into a new Design Council, with parallel but separate divisions for the support of engineering design and industrial design, respectively. Shortly after the General Election of 1979, the incoming government 'rediscovered' Design as a key to British industrial prosperity, and set the stage for the Design revolution of the 1980s, which is what I really wanted to comment upon. This time, Design was perceived by the politicians to be predominantly an engineering matter. And this time, the engineering establishment, led by the Science and Engineering Research Council, was better poised to rise to the occasion. A whole catalogue of reports, initiatives, links, grants, teaching programme endorsements, new chairs in engineering design and support schemes for design in industry poured out between 1980 and 1989, led and promoted by distinguished engineers and industrialists. At the Design Council, the parallel structures for the promotion of engineering design and industrial design respectively were swept away, to be replaced by a single structure, for the most part dominated by engineering interests. In the USA, in 1985, following the conduct of a special enquiry led by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers into Goals and priorities for research in engineering design: A report to the Design Research Community, the National Science Foundation offered annual substantial grants for research into design under its newly created Design theory and methodology program. Needless to say, American university departments of engineering have been quick to include design
183
methods research and design methods teaching in their curricula. On the international scale, wider tendencies, such as the globalization of manufacturing and marketing, and the growing importance of quality assurance, have reinforced the dominance of engineering in design. Unhappily, the same political and economic forces that had caused the British government to espouse design for the second time, had also led them to make massive cuts in tax payers' funding for the arts and social sciences• The art and design schools, along with the museums and the performing arts, were badly hit and departments of industrial design were able to benefit only marginally, if at all, from government Design funding. By ill chance, architecture was getting a bad press at the time, for different reasons, and the old alliance had melted away. Thus, by 1989, the displacement of the architectural and industrial design establishments from their former preeminence was complete. What of the next decade, the 1990s? Revolutions are hard to predict. I will not venture even to try. The constants may be easier to foresee. I would be very surprised indeed to see engineering design lose its power base as the centre of the Design lobby in the next ten years. I would be less surprised to see the role of the industrial designer becoming less distinctive. I have never quite understood why industrial designers in their heyday so vigorously denied that styling was a significant part of what they did. Contributing importantly to the success of a product by making it distinctive, convenient and attractive to the purchaser has always seemed to me to be a perfectly respectable professional activity deman-
ding great skills and sensitivity, worthy of respect and worthy of appropriate reward. Had they been less jumpy about it, the art and design schools migl~t have done better in their years of dominance to have built a scholarly basis for a unique role in styling and other marketing and human factors, on the lines of the new discipline of Product Semantics, instead of vying with the engineers for the role of comprehensive designer. As it is, a number of engineering school have learned to produce graduates who are entirely proficient in the techniques of styling and presentation in addition to being qualified in engineering science and engineering design. In some industrial design offices, where mixed disciplinary teams are the order of the day, industrial designers and engineers are barely distinguishable from one another. My own feeling is that the next decade will again be dominated by global issues, such as the environment, pollution, overpopulation, third world poverty, public liability and public participation in decision making in planning and design. Such issues will bring other professionals into the design coalition, and will expose all their values and competencies to wider criticism. Significantly, these are precisely the issues that were current when the Design Research Society was founded and which have been largely forgotten since. Plus c'a change • . . ! Maybe there really is something in that theory of thirty year cycles.
Bruce Archer
the future of good intentions Invited to write my memories and expectations of design research I begin by designing the writing process. I decide to look back with the aid of three texts 1-3 which have helped me in the past and to look forward with the aid of my most recent writing. The Electric Book 4, a fiction that I hope to continue into the new millennium. The first text from the past is the book of Chuang Tsu who is the only philosopher I know to write humorously and whose writing I enjoy more than most. The next is George Sturt's description of craftwork which showed me how marvellous designs could be made without designers or any of the specialists whom we think essential today. The third is a lecture by Gertrude Stein which led me to pay more attention to words and which I gather was written as she watched her car engine being dismantled and put together. That apparently was her inspiration.
an example of what I want to say: that designing could be the work of everyone, but it is not work, it can be enjoyed and it depends upon the readers, or users (as we call ourselves in our roles at the receiving end) as we decide and create the meaning or the purpose for ourselves beyond what a writer or designer can foresee.
The process tells me to write paragraphs of equal length5 to quotations selected partly by chance from these sources until the article is of the length requested by the editor. This will I hope make the writing and the reading
When I try to recall why I took to designing I remember being irritated by the design of almost everything and especially by the lack of consideration for the users, the people whom, one might think, the designs were for. My
184
Notwithstanding the greatness of heaven and earth, their transforming power proceeds from one lathe; notwithstanding the number of myriad things, the government of them is one and the same; notwithstanding the multitude of mankind, the lord of them is their (one) ruler. The ruler's (course) should proceed from the qualities (of the Tao) and can be perfected by Heaven, when it is so, it is called 'Mysterious and Sublime'. The ancients ruled the world by doing nothing;- simply by this attribute of Heaven. 1
DESIGN STUDIES
earliest attempts (in the forties & fifties) were to enter competitions ~or the design of cars, bath taps, electrical plugs and sockets, and the like. In each case I noted ways in which these things were not well adaptated to people and made new designs in which this adaptation was I hope improved. The mirror is now in place and the void is closed off. The librarian found it and fixed it for the ornaments with a few strokes of her steady fingers. Now we are ready, she declares, to lighten the shadows and to soften the highlights, we are ready for the preamble to the occupation of the middle ground. Light and dark are too extreme, what we need is chiaroscuro, or the moral equivalent of marriage. 4 In those days I think I saw designing as a unique occupation which allowed one to correct the mistakes of the past and to undo the gross inhumanity of everything industrial, everything which was marked by the narrow thinking of the mechanical age. I remember reading books by Frank Lloyd Wright, Henry Dreyfuss and Lewis Mumford and looking for what was later called ergonomics. Those who had been duly apprenticed were wont to say, in my shop, that a man learnt more as an 'Improver', in the first twelve months after his apprentiship was over, than in all the six or seven years of 'serving time'. Although there may have been some swank about this, I think there was some truth too. It was not only that an improver was liable to be discharged, and had to try at last to work well, if he had never tried before. This was what the skilled men chiefly meant, and it was true. A youth, turning from apprentice to improver, must now prove his worth or 'get the sack'. But more than this: experienced judgment was called for in many jobs that an apprentice could hardly be trusted to do, and this the elder men understood. The case was probably the same in other trades. A watch-maker assured me that, while it was comparatively easy for a youth at a technical school to make a new watch, the test of a true workman was at the repairing bench. Certainly this applied to wheelwrights. A machine could turn out a wheel - of sorts but to mend one required, in many cases, long experience. Because this was so, I learnt to dislike employing either an old pensioner from the army or a young boy from a technical class. The soldier (besides being usually out of the habit of steady work) could not bring any experience of his own to bear and was afraid to move without orders. The army had killed his initiative. The boy, on the other hand, with no experience at all, was wont to think he already knew enough. He would not be told, and he was too vain to learn the lessons constantly coming from repairs. 2 I got into what later was called design methods by accident. What I was looking for was a way to make engineering design more sensitive to the requirements of people. I was fed up with the way in which engineers
Vol 11 No 4 October 1990
could always say to an ergonomist 'but you can't put enough space here, or there, to properly accommodate the operator of the thing, it has already been decided that an essential bit of equipment has to occupy that space', or some such argument. So I studied the way the engineers made these decisions that ignored the operator until it was too late. From what I learnt I proposed a systematic method in which human requirements and all others could be adequately explored before the main decisions were made. In doing this I discovered that I was not the only one trying to improve design processes. In particular there was Peter Slann 6 at Imperial College and he and I found that there were enough people interested to call the 1962 conference. Thereafter I got drawn more into design methods than into ergonomics, particularly as there was by then a wish to give academic degrees for design. The universities could not accept mere drawing as evidence of research so 'methodology', as it is called, was taken as a way to make designing academic. So I got drawn into teaching design at universities and it was then that my view of design widened. I began to see that, if this increasingly designed world is to become more human, less mechanical, we have to find ways to share the process 'with everyone'. But how? Difficult question. We may first have to change the culture. But marriage is the moral equivalent of everything, says the mother, not knowing what's made her say that and looking with horror at the tv where the story of her present life and speech is happening before everyone, but in these words that someone else is w r i t i n g . . . 4 At this point, having completed the book Design Methods (which was meant as my goodbye present to the profession), I became interested in randomness and this led me to write pieces like this in which intention is over-ridden by chance and the text is open to other things. There is singularly nothing that makes a difference a difference in beginning and in the middle and in ending except that each generation has something different at which they are all looking. By this I mean so simply that anybody knows it that composition is the difference which makes each and all of them different from other generations and this is what makes everything different otherwise they are all alike and everybody knows it because everybody says it. 3 So now, what do I hope for the future of design research? I'd like professional designing to be replaced by what I call "depending on everyone ''7. And I'd like the rational part of designing, the results of research, to become publicly accessible software while the creative part, the practical experience, the 'improving', becomes what everyone does to live, as each of us does when we speak. There was a time when only scribes could write but now it is almost universal. Oh dear, she cries, this is terrible, it's worse than seeing
185
phantoms, as she experiences the fate of being a character in a book. There's absolutely nothing you can do, she says, you just have to wait to be written as the story moves on in some way you'd never choose. Get me out, get me out, and the family as well of course, let's leave this nightmare, take us home, take us home. 4 But do not worry, mother, we're not pulling life to pieces we're putting it together. What you are feeling now is the shock of being released from passivity. Put your fingers on the keys and you can write you own story, the experts are no longer in command. I f you can write a letter you can write a book. You can help to make a world in which you feel at home everywhere. But we are at home dear mother, says the little girl politely, and it's interesting to read this as we live it, don't turn it off. T o me there is no difference between obeying parents or authors, they all want to mould you in patterns that are dead. 4 And as he comes to the end of this he wonders who is writing it, and who for, and why he is so far away now from the world of design which once he knew so well. Hush, for that was not you, not me, it was a ghost. The present moment is the life.
notes and references I decided to take the first paragraphs of whatever
186
chapters were selected by random n u m b e r from references 1 & 2, the first paragraph of refereoce 3, and the first and successive paragraphs of reference 4. ,These decisions and numbers determined the sequence of the quotations.
Chuang Tzu 'The writings of Chuang Tzu' in Legge, J (translator) The texts of taoism, part 1 Dover Publications Ltd, New York (1962) p 330 Sturt G The wheelwright's shop Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK (1923) p 175 Stein G 'Composition as explanation' in Stein G (edited by Meyerowitz P) Look at me now and here I am Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex (1971) p 21
Jones J C The electric book. volume 5 The first draft is to be published in a CD-ROM disc, (apply to the author for publication details, they have not arrived as I write this) Chapter 13. My paragraphs, when translated into the format of Design Studies, may not be exactly equal to the lengths of the quotations. Slann P A Forword to Conference on design methods (edited by Jones J C and Thorniey D G) Pergammon Press, Oxford, 1963, p xi
Jones J C advised and assisted by Pedretti A, Williams S, Wetton B, Ferney K, Brown M, Depending on everyone, Design Studies Vol 11 No 4 (October 1990) pp 187-194 John Chris Jones
DESIGN STUDIES