Diálogo iniciado por Luis O’hara sobre:

*I'm going to answer in english, it's little bit comfortable for me.*

Thanks for the comment. The article wasn't a complete degree discussion in design. The aim of the post was to clearify the meaning of the word "design". In some words: art is not design. An objects that has not function or does not complete the purposed function are not "design objects". The estectics comes in a later time, so the object could be a bautiful design object. I mean if an event poster is really beautiful but place and dates are in a little font on the bottom of the page, could be the poster a correctly designed object? Or a chair that has 3 awersome estetical flexible legs, could you use it?

We are missing the users’ desires and needs in all of this. A design cannot be structured based merely on functions that consequently delight with some aesthetical features. If that´s the case, a design is just an aesthetical object with clear purpose, for me.

Here is the fault in the conclusion. Yes, we do investigate the market, usability and so on, but we are assuming that the problem we are seeking to solve is the right one to solve. We need to step back a little bit and turn aside all this viability and marketing stuff to focus on the desirability of our design.

A true design starts with previous user-centered ideation process in order to fully understand the requirement and therefore seek and solve the right problem. We can build the perfect ecological and marketable chair for a user that already has a nice chair, but might just need a height-adjustable desk to work standing up from time to time, just to cheer up a little bit.

Hi Nico, You're right. The purpose of the article was just a little reflaction on the meaning of "design object" in the costumary speaking. I'm aware that an article of 7 minutes can't solve the problem and definition of design. Thanks for the comment, I'm perfectly agree on the user center method to solve a design problem, it shoud be a central topic in all the discussions, even those where it is not a question of digital design.

A primary function of a poster refers to vocability, to the attention call we could say, in that sense a function is resolved in an aesthetic way, everything depends on the context. I agree with you, first goes the function, but I think that design objects tend to fulfill an aesthetic function as part of the concept, I say if it were only a function, the objects could be manufactured by engineers, in such a case, just a little reflection, greetings.