2008 Design Conferences

I just scoured the web, and compiled a listing in no particular order of various design-related conferences happening this year, with their dates and fees, as an FYI to those thinking of attending certain events (or just want to know what’s the buzz in the industry). Hope you find this helpful!

IxDA Interaction 08: Savannah, GA
Feb 8-10 (closed admission/waitlisted)
site: http://interaction08.ixda.org/

CHI 2008: Florence, Italy
April 5 – 10
fee: 800 to 1200
site: http://www.chi2008.org/

O’Reilly Emerging Tech Conf: San Diego, CA
March 3 – 6
fee: 1390 to 1690
site: http://en.oreilly.com/et2008/public/content/home

Adobe MAX 2008: San Francisco, CA
Nov 16 – 19
more info TBA…

SXSW interactive: Austin, TX
March 7 – 11
fee: various packages
site: http://2008.sxsw.com/interactive/

AIGA 2009: Memphis, TN
Oct 8 – 11 2009
fee: 500 to 700
site: http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/design-conference-2009

IDSA 2008: Phoenix, AZ
Sept 10 -13
more info TBA…

How 2008: Boston, MA
May 18 – 21
fee: 995 to 1075
site: http://www.howconference.com/

AEA 2008: various cities and dates
site: https://store.aneventapart.com/

DMI: Singapore
March 13 – 14
fee: 480 to 535 (singapore dollars)
site: http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/conference/SG2007/conference.htm

DMI: Paris
April 14 – 15
fee: 240 to 375 euros
site: http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/conference/academic08/academic.htm

AIGA Aspen Design Summit: Aspen, CO
June 24 – 27
fee: TBA
site: http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/aspen-design-summit

AIGA Design Education: Boston, MA
april 4 – 6
fee: 175 to 225
site: http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/massaging-media-2

Institute of Design Strategy Conference: Chicago, IL
May 22- 23
fee: 1350 – 2950
site: http://www.id.iit.edu/362/

Gain: AIGA Business + Design: NYC
Oct 23 – 25
fee: 725 to 925
site: http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/gain-conference-2008

Purposes of design

Speaking to the values designers strive for, Buchanan articulates it this way, from the Governing Ideas white paper for CMU’s School of Design:

“As conceived by designers, the purposes of design are exceptionally diverse. Some designers pursue what is good for human beings and for society at large. Other pursue what is useful in supporting human activities and the quality of human interaction. Other pursue what is pleasurable and delightful in easing the burdens of everyday life. And, still others pursue what is just or fair in the distribution of products and services across all sectors of society.”

Core design abilities

Again from Dick Buchanan, in his Governing Ideas white paper for Carnegie Mellon’s School of Design:

1. Designers must be inventive in conceiving the possibilities of a product.

2. Designers must be able to judge which of their inventions are viable in the contingent circumstances of manufacture and human use.

3. Designers must be able to make connections among many fields of knowledge essential for the development of a product and, based on such connections, draw reasonable conclusions or make decisions about the plan of a product.

4. Designers must be able to evaluate the results of conception and planning and choose a final solution based on values, preferences, and goals before a product is carried forward to clients and, ultimately, to human users.

So it’s all about Creating, Judging, Deciding, Choosing:

“The real subjects of the new intellectual free trade among the many cultures are our own thought processes, our processes of judging, deciding, choosing, and creating.” — Herb Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial

Update: Jamin Hegeman, MDes 2008, recently posted on Buchanan’s latest thoughts re: the core competencies of design: http://jamin.org/archives/2008/core-competencies-of-design/

Core ideas of design

Straight from Dick Buchanan, as worded in his Interaction Design class syllabus:

“Design is an art of conceiving and planning products that are useful in supporting the activities of human beings in all areas of experience. Except in the area of crafts, designers do not make final products. They make prototypes and other visualizations, usually with supporting documentation that subsequently serve to guide manufacture and production.”

Continuing further about the nature of the profession of design…

“Design cannot be reduced to a fine art, engineering, or the social sciences without a significant loss in the richness, value, and utility of products. There may be strategic reasons for specialized work in one or another of these areas, but designers draw knowledge and insight from all of these areas in order to conceive and plan effective products.”

“Design is an integrative discipline, independent of specialized subject-matter disciplines. The vision behind this development is perhaps less evident than the visions that have reduced design successively to the fine arts, engineering, and the social sciences. But in the long term, the vision of design as an integrative discipline is more significant. Alliances between design and other disciplines will change from time to time as exciting new knowledge emerges in one or another field due to the contingent circumstances of research. But the essential advance of design–its ability to retain an identity and to incorporate new knowledge in the broader enterprise of design practice–will come from better understanding of the integrative nature of design thinking.”

And finally, the closer…

“Our department’s approach to design is fundamentally rhetorical in nature, in the sense that we regard design as a discipline that is based on the situatedness of products. This is a recognition that all products are situated in concrete, particular circumstances of human use, and that design must be a communicative art directed towards planning shaping human experience. The task of the designer is to conceive and plan products that are appropriate to human situations, drawing whatever knowledge and ideas are needed from all of the arts and sciences. For this reason we have identified communication and the human experience in design as the fundamental theme of the department.”

And one more thing :-)

“Design is an art of practical deliberation oriented towards shaping the argument of all products. The core of design, therefore, is an argument that integrates logos, mythos, ethos, and pathos. This argument is not expressed in words…they are vividly embodied in images, objects, actions/services, and systems.”

Design process as a Swiss army knife

Going back to my previous post about my flavor of the user-centered design process, I want to clarify one vital point. The most important thing about having an effective design process is not that you march lockstep through every step and every single artifact (persona, object model, taskflow, functional map, etc.) for every single design situation or every client.

Nor is it helpful to manage the process with excessive layers of bureaucracy, mandatory reviews and approvals/sign-offs from various people before design actions can be taken or movement forward to the next step.

Such approaches transform the design process into a heavy-handed tool that can take control of the designer and the designs themselves, adversely effecting mood and attitudes, perhaps even subverting cooperation with your clients and allied teams. It’s the designer’s (and team’s) process, so you have to own the process, else the process owns you.

Instead, it’s better to approach your design process (whatever flavor or variant accepted and evolved for you, your team and/or company) like a Swiss army knife. Nobody enters a room boldly brandishing the knife with all its tools fully exposed–At least, I hope not! :-) Instead, it’s kept in the backpocket and pulled out when it’s needed by the wise, knowing owner who recognizes when a necessary situation arises that would make best use of a particular tool.

Similarly, a designer shouldn’t simply barge into a meeting blasting the problem with full-on UCD process with all its minutae, which could unsettle the other project collaborators–unless they’re totally clueless and chaotic, thus desperate from some militant order and structure!

So it’s assumed here for an effectively waged design process, that the designer knows when to use it well, when to leverage certain phases and artifacts, when there are gaps in knowledge or stalemates to break through via certain artifacts or design activities, and so on. It’s also assumed that the designer can and will leverage whatever past experience and knowledge (i.e., wisdom) to resolve immediate design problems, particularly repeated patterns–just try to use what you’ve done before for another client. See if it works! If the designer feels confident to move forward per instincts and experience, so be it and then evaluate results with alpha testers or customers with iteration, accordingly.

It’s far more important to have a solid valid process, and use it flexibly, adaptively, per situations, operating in the back of the designer’s mind to be unleashed in a judicious manner…not as an explicitly wielded function of bureaucracy or project management which can often be counter-productive.

Just to rant briefly for a bit… I think there’s a general belief in the IxD/HCI world that if a designer doesn’t go through every single step of a militantly ordained UCD-driven process, then the designer is not “user-centered” or the result is no longer “usable”. I disagree. I think it is actually possible to trust a designer’s instincts and past experience/knowledge as a visionary leader who can solve various problems. And just possibly, it’s those moments when personal ingenuity and creative insight emerge forth. The last thing you want to do is use your design process as a recipe or formula that stifles innovation and creativity…or serendipitous moments of insight!