My understanding is that she wants to say that more people nowadays focus on the formula instead the real content. Design thinking can be the "formula" to help people to come up great design. However people reply on the "formula" instead of trying to make great design,. It becomes inflexible. Maybe sometimes some design projects don't need the full 5 steps ...I think Design thinking its self is not bad , Good or bad is not depending on itself but depending on how people use it.

@LuisArteaga007

5 жыл бұрын

Great approach to overcome our cognitive bias. Instead of immediately looking on her flawed arguments. You are trying to understand her motivation and looking for truth in her point of view.

@Descalabro

5 жыл бұрын

@@LuisArteaga007 Except there is no formula in design thinking, there's only a general process which can be adapted depending on the situation. I will not look for truth in her point of view, because it's not only her arguments that are flawed, it's her entire point of view. By the way, she ditched her own principle of "crit" when she decided to talk about design thinking in such a superficial manner.

@ngreat4390

4 жыл бұрын

Design thinking as a body of knowledge is an attempt to chronologically itemize something that designers do in 'Brownian' fashion. DT is valid in that it studies and documents processes that are naturally internalized to a designer. It in itself is not a process but a study of processes and this is why people attempting to use it as is to develop products soon get stuck and abandon it. DT can help novices Play catch up where professionals are hired to generate results in a certain field because the design process is naturally a very convoluted, and having a knowledge of DT doesn't impart the dexterity of mind needed to turn ideas into things.

@PavanKumar-cg9cp

4 жыл бұрын

very true, its subjective to the brief or problem statement you working with and can be customized for desired results

@boggianluzecriacao

3 жыл бұрын

Olá, Jeanie Lin Boa tarde tem vídeo novo no nosso canal. Não perca!

I think the main and almost the only problem is that design done well really only has two steps: 1. solve that problem and 2. make it easy. we've added a third step which is 3. do it entirely in visually driven software programs. very few designers do physical labor or really have any connection with the physicality of the products they are designing. they aren't designing things with materials in mind and rarely just pick up stuff and mash product together until they comprehend why there is a problem in the first place. design is physical and we've made it almost entirely cerebral. that's why some of the best solutions usually come from people who sit and pick at bones in the spaces where the problem exists. they come from the bottom-up. it's honestly why some of the best designers who make the most useful products have very little artistic skills. What comes to mind almost immediately is Seymour Cray, father of supercomputing. His designs and strategic way of thinking has led almost entirely to our current AI moment. I know people who worked with him and have seen his personal papers and heard local tales. He was an oddball, but onto something new. Because he lived in a farming community and was driven by materials. "If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use: two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?" is one of his famous quotes lmao. he was driven almost entirely by removing the tedium from physical labor. and that is primarily because he did, in fact, do the physical labor. we've eliminated the part of "solve problems" and replaced it with "replace things that were functional and pretty with newer, prettier things" and given ourselves tools that will always lead to cutting recognizable and entertaining elements out of older designs because we approach it entirely from the point of view of a staged photographic image. it's a cycle that is going to perpetuate itself because it must. even typing these thoughts into words have reduced their potency. reading it here will strip the meaning from the knowledge I am trying to convey. that's the way youtube is set up, and it will behave that way because it must. now, instead... imagine that I take you into the middle of a freshly plowed field. it smells like cow poop after a rainstorm. I hold my finger in the air and we try to guess the wind direction and speed. I set up a wind sock. it's orange. I set out a ruler. we make small guesses from that. Now imagine that you are a wind surfer. You have learned to read the wind with your body, innately understand it's effects. you are more attuned to the physicality of the weather because you have learned to manipulate and interpret the wind with your shoulders and back. you could probably stand out there and tell me things even the best tools (windsock and ruler and maybe a gyroscope) could never, ever tell me. your physical understanding of the world is a data machine far more potent than these visual tools. I probably wouldn't be able to understand your description properly, because you would tell me with the vernacular of a surfer. but I would try. you could design a better tool for surfing the wind just by the way it feels, and you wouldn't need a windsock. we've gone so holistic and data driven that we've forgotten how to feel the wind properly to understand it. it's worth noting that Seymour Cray was a windsurfer and one of his first projects when his machines were functional was measuring the weather and the wind in particular. meanwhile we never leave the house. our eyeballs are a great shortcut for understanding the world, but our eyeballs are why we have beautiful things that break easily, beautiful clothes that shred in a few months, beautiful ads that sell no products, beautiful phones that spend most of their lifecycle with cracked screens. beautiful white boards covered in beautiful post-its. clickable links and beautifully formatted articles with no substance. beautiful data. beautiful, beautiful data. beautiful watches to read our heart rates, beautiful food in beautiful packages with no real nutritional value. beautiful fonts to say meaningless words. what is a font to a blind person. what is a story with a beginning and an end but nothing to say. we speak in shorthand. our designs meddle with the surface of the world instead of becoming a meaningful fixture within it and really that's cultural

I was an art director, I know this type of critique and ivory tower thinking - the designer as creative genius, because I was there myself. We would create work that was only validated by the client or each other and put out into the world after which we wait for the response from the public. There is nothing wrong with this because art direction and graphic design serve an entirely different purpose from say UX or industrial design. Why she thinks she can speak on design thinking is beyond me. I can only assume it is because it has the word design in it? Design thinking, serves an entirely different purpose from the work that is done work done at Pentagram. A printed poster or book does not include user engagement that changes of the state product itself or requires input and output. It's closer to art which is perfectly fine, just different from a user interface for example. Pentagram does awesome work but this kind of approach, the 'lone intuitive designer genius' serves little purpose in tech. I made the shift to design thinking because I'm doing completely different work now as a UX engineer. Sure, you don't want Pentagram to go out and validate their unique work because they don't design to solve business problems and user needs in the same way - they are paid to be the sole creative voice. Last few points, design thinking is not linear (at all); it IS evidence based (she spoke about surrounding herself with evidence, although I don't know what that means to her) and I don't understand why she thinks design thinking is this neat process or why that would be a relevant criticism? She sounds like an aristocrat fearing a burgeoning middle class: 'How very dare they use the word design!'.

@briepers

5 жыл бұрын

She is showing such a myopic view here. Design thinking involves graphic design yes, but it also involves so many other outcomes...By the time she gets a job for a brochure or a website, or whatever tangible thing she's working on, there have been so many other design decisions made (by professional designers or not...) This brings that classic joke to mind. "Q: How many designers does it take to screw in a lightbulb. A: Does it have to be a lightbulb?" That's where our value to our clients comes in, asking those hard questions.

@ngreat4390

4 жыл бұрын

Design thinking is very linear. If you've actually been a designer like you say and you've internalized design Thinking for what it is then you'll recognise that it is just a study and chronological depictions of how a designer's mind operates. An actual designers mind is a beehive and most things are reverse engineered. The fact is, because you're migrating to a new sphere of operation, you need to learn the linear models of creation in that sphere but as you grow and handle complex issues for clients with unique needs, your mind will kick into typical designer overdrive and all that fancy DT will be long forgotten. DT is a linear relationship whereas the actual mental design process is haphazard and needs be for people who are natural born designers.

@wonkaytry

4 жыл бұрын

You are a complete oxymoron

@Puleczech

3 жыл бұрын

I think you miss the point that Design Thinking is being used as an universal method in companies to teach non-designers how to think like designers in reality. The problem is, this is facilitated on a very short and superficial scales, as a workshop or a course at best, giving the participants false impression they know what the design work is about or that they have mastered the complete design process. Design Thinking as a methodology is not bad. It is the problem how it's being sold. It leaves thousands of people right after the start of the Dunning-Kruger curve. It is literally the same thing as with any youtube tutorial where anyone thinks they can suddenly cook, sing or fly a plane. Any marketing or sales person attending the workshop suddenly feels like they know how to design things. It is incredible people fail to see this can not work with almost any other profession, but somehow the entire design knowledge can be compressed into 6 steps over a weekend workshop. Don't be surprised when you - as a UX engineer - get stuck in a loop of constantly explaining basic arguments to people who gain the feeling they know how to design things better because they have attended one of these workshops. Sure, I might have had bad experience, but you can hardly argue with Dunning-Kruger. DT has good parts to it for sure, but it also promotes half-assed outputs and frustrates the very people who are responsible for those outputs - designers. In the long run, it will be the end user who will suffer from this.

@danaakins-adeyemi2377

2 жыл бұрын

@@ngreat4390 Design Thinking is not linear! I have been a designer and also Design Engineer for decades. There is a lot of iteration and back and forth in the Design Process. Btw I am also an Industrial Design professor and a UX professor. I don’t know what you have designed but I’ve designed cameras for Polaroid, brace for Johnson & Johnson, Burn in Sockets for TI , and many other products that use Design Thinking and The Engineering Design Process (Both are nearly the same except sometimes some engineers skip the empathy stage of DT because Industrial Design or Human Factors will cover it instead)

Wow this was extremely hard to sit through. It was crystal clear in more ways than one that Natasha Jen had no idea what design thinking even was or how it is intended to be used. She repeatedly described it as a "hexagonal five step linear process," which, as many design thinkers know, is blatantly wrong. In fact, she even included a photo in her slide of "Google images that pop up when you search design thinking" which explicitly demonstrates the nonlinearity aspect of the design process (arrows bouncing back to each stage to highlight the iterative nature of the process). Thus, her argument that design thinking does not incorporate criticism, or "crit" as she calls it, at every step is completely invalid. A good design process will understand the user by gaining feedback, or criticism, from the user. The designer will then define the problem based on that feedback and begin ideating, often with the user. Then, the designer will move onto designing a prototype to test it with the user to obtain feedback. Clearly, if done correctly, design thinking does involve criticism and feedback at every step. Natasha wraps up her talk by claiming that "design just becomes this box that you want to check off." Clearly, her company is approaching design and design thinking from the wrong angle if this is what she truly believes. While I do agree with her that many companies can improve upon this, and that design thinkers deserve a spot at the table, the entire point of design thinking is to embed it into the roots of the company and the mindsets of the employees so it is always factoring into every decision, not just design decisions.Lastly, she uses the example of Steve Jobs' office and how "he applied his own form of design thinking, which was intuition, by focusing on people's needs rather than business needs." This made me chuckle because she is perfectly describing design thinking (designing for people rather than the needs of a business) and its potential benefits (Steve Jobs' amazingly successful products), yet continues to use it as an argument as to why design thinking is bullsh*t. Overall, I think Natasha Jen brought up some great points: the importance of iteration, criticism and feedback in the design process, the use of many mediums and tools to carry out this process, and the implementation of this process in non-design fields. However, what I don't think she realizes is that she is describing crucial parts of the design thinking process. In a way, I think she actually believes the opposite of the title of her talk.

@christinegivens9048

3 жыл бұрын

Well said. Great comment. Shame more ppl didn’t see it. Thank you!

@SativaSeanLasVegas

3 жыл бұрын

I agree wholeheartedly very well said I couldn't have said it better myself

@ashrock1990

2 жыл бұрын

True she thinks from her own personal experience at places ,she worked as visual designer

@TheMrBrendo

2 жыл бұрын

i 100% agree, if she would just zoom in on one of those images she cited as proof of her point and see how it shows design thinking as a messy and non linear process.

@paulrivera1969

2 жыл бұрын

Agree, Natasha is 100% wrong. no idea about design thinking, she is stuck in the realm of "graphic designers". This is what happens when people with 0% of knowledge do "Research in Google" -> Hey Google is a "search" engine, Is NOT a Research Engine.

A designer that doesn't like Design Thinking... of course!! Design Thinking is more about business strategy and less about the design of things. The very idea that everyone can use a participatory, non-linear, prototype-driven and research-led approach to solving problems many or even most of which extend well beyond the typical relm of most designers is perhaps challenging or even threatening. But your title grabs attention and sparks consideration. Thanks for your thought provoking presentation, Natasha.

I was hoping that this talk would give me insight into the problem with design thinking, such as Henry Ford did with "If I asked the customer what they wanted, they would just tell me 'a faster horse.' " Instead I got a talk that fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the testing phase of design thinking. All her criticisms (criticism, iteration, evidence, immersion) can be found to be active in that stage.

Yeah, I don't really think she is necessarily attacking Design Thinking. The big take way from this video for me is how it became a thing that is superficial. Everybody will use it because it is a trend. It is one possibility, but not the only way to achieve or evaluate results and goals. It can be useful in some cases but who said you can't either adapt or go other ways.

I'm more of a traditional graphic designer, if you will, so I know what she's trying to say, but personally, I think the presentation is full of logical fallacies and I walked away with the impression that she's not aware of how design thinking isn't linear, if she understands it at all. I wonder if she had anyone crit her presentation beforehand. I agree with her that intuition, etc. are just as important, but to assume that it excludes or invalidates those things simply because it's not an explicitly stated step, that's not a very valid argument. "Crit" is the baked-in driving force behind each of those stages. Otherwise, where's the need to prototype, ideate, or test come from? If there's anything that makes design thinking superior to other design approachs, it would be the reinforcement that "you are not the user," and outline the requirement to solicit "crit" from not just fellow designers or even stakeholders/clients, but the actual users, from start to finish. Design thinking definitely isn't perfect, but it's perfect for the time when more and more engineers began to delve into the world of designing experiences rather than just features for digital products. Lee Sean Huang also has a great response Natasha's view: soundcloud.com/leeseanh/yes-design-thinking-is-bs

From personal experience, I've seen that strictly following design thinking methodologies as a process, tends to foster an environment where people are talking about ideas (AKA writing thing on sticky notes and rough napkin sketches) but are not in the process of thinking through the process of making things (the example of the architect studio with the foam prototypes). Both forms of thinking are valuable, but DT tends to miss out on the thinking through making approach. It makes sense that business execs. would gravitate towards and more easily understand the methods they can accomplish themselves. Many design fields like architecture, graphic design, and industrial design tend to focus more on learning through making. This is much less prevalent in digital and UX design industries. I think this is one of the reasons digital design feels so homogeneous right now. I only see opportunities to bolster UX processes from the criticisms that Natasha Jen makes here. This talk is crit 101. The fact that so many are struggling to deal with criticism perfectly exemplifies the industries inexperience with it.

@kunalincredible

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely true. Many people from different industries come here to say that they disagree with Jen's point. I understand their insecurity, but DT is like opposite of creating something new or, as she suggested, boxed creativity.

@KTGgraff

Жыл бұрын

Can relate so well to the criticism point. People forget we all want to make the best thing for the person that uses it and not for the ego of the one who designed it. I think jaque frescos ideas on creativity are spot on and free you from the pressure of being the 'artist'. You're just putting ideas together.

1. Design thinking goes beyond Design in the aesthetic sense- it is more of a philosophy and mindset for dealing with complex problems creatively 2. Design thinking is iterative (contrary to Her claims). You can move the subsequent steps back to the prior steps for clarity 3. Post-it is not a design thinking tool, just a material used while employing tools like Persona Building and Brainstorming - just like a whiteboard 4. Crit- is the same as testing phase of design thinking 5. Her example of Steve Jobs doesnt work because in describing Jobs approach she was describing the human-centered focus of design thinking. Ideo (Design Thinkers) have worked with apple to design some of apples most iconic products such as the mouse 6. Design thinking encourages us to surround ourselves with the evidence Contrary to Her claims)- The very first step in the process- empathy- is built upon getting unbiased evidence 7. Creative ability is not the same thing as artistic ability 8.Even though She is a Graphic Designer, She really doesn't understand Design Thinking 9. I wish I was in that audience :)

@jumokeabdulazeez2870

Жыл бұрын

Design thinking is broad, and the approach can be used for any kind of design, such as UI Design, UX Design, System Design, or the design of any process, etc. I think people miss the point because they think of "design" only in terms of how things look instead of how they work. In short, people use design thinking in different ways depending on the situation. The way a graphic designer approaches design thinking may be different from the way a product designer approaches it.

@dextermafa3901

Жыл бұрын

There's no clear definition of what design thinking is, if it can't be defined then how can it be understood.

@eseoraka

Жыл бұрын

@@dextermafa3901 I am not sure I quite I agree with your assertion. Even "subjects" with a longer History, like Strategy don't have a clear universal definition. Yet , like DT, There are clear definitions with recurring and overlapping themes. As well as similar processes that can be understood.

@jimmybotao1

Жыл бұрын

She did understand Design Thinking and hate it

I understand that being a real designer is difficult since with the introduction of Design Thinking now everyone is "doing Design" - not just the *real* Designers. Dear Natasha - DT was implemented because, after 20 years of accountants, controllers, financial wizards running large corporations focus has been lost regarding the end user. DT is the answer to that. It has nothing to do with designers - nor does anyone believe that the guy in the post department is now on the same level as the top designer - just because he spent 2 hours creating user stories.

@Ann-gc6df

5 жыл бұрын

So true!

@Puleczech

3 жыл бұрын

"...nor does anyone believe..." You would be surprised what my former Product Manager believed after he read couple articles on Medium. Design still has - and perhaps even more so today - the aura of "well it's just a matter of picking nice colours and copying something I've seen elsewhere...". It is good Design Thinking empowers people that OUGHT to focus on end users more, but it really seems it stops many of them somewhere right after the beginning of the Dunning-Kruger curve.

We over think "design" - at the end of the day, its PROBLEM SOLVING like the majority of human endeavors. Whether you use a napkin, a notebook, or a laptop is irrelevant...it's the outcome and the results that matter.

Natasha, thank you so much for your thought provoking presentation. From a "designers" standpoint I think I get your point. However I believe there is real value in enabling and empowering non-designers with creative tools and mindset to solve business challenges. In my mind this is more about Business Straetgy and less to do with actual "design" of things. For example what does an organization design "look" like? Or how might we think about applying AI to our business or our service model? Maybe these aren't typical design problems but to simply write off Design Thinking because it's not typical to what "designers" use misses the point I think. Additionally when you say the 5 step process is linear I think that's not exactly right - typically we use and recommend it as a non linear approach with the main point being iterative improvements with customer or people centricity. Design Thinking as a methodolgy extends well beyond "designers" and the typical design fields they are engaged in. Lastly Crit is handled by ethnographic methods such as Think aloud Testing or the Rose, Thorn, Bud activity. There are others of course. The title of your presentation does help give the topic thoughtful attention. Thanks again for your thought provoking presentation!

@risinventures

2 жыл бұрын

I I The first time I I am a I I oo I am a o and I I 9 IL o I

@sarar941

Жыл бұрын

I learned more from reading your comment than from this lady who seems threatened by anyone outside of her field calling themselves a designer. Thank YOU

Natasha, I am now 52....I have 26 years working to learn and practice..'best practice' using design thinking... I always felt something was missing using this restrictive step guide design thinking approach. I love David Kelly's enthusiasm and his ability to 'equalise' status in a corporate workshop setting. However...many companies still fixate on on steps, hierarchy and 3m (lol), your speach is such a brilliant shout out. I still believe in empathy as it encourages collaboration and for us to (as you so rightly say) all surround ourselves with evidence... brilliant speech thankyou x

@brendanh8193

6 ай бұрын

So is the issue in the hierarchical culture at your business trying to undermine the very tool they are trying to implement? (I'm imagining a cartoon of a digger, with a fat cat in the cabin with "hierarchy" writtenacrosshis chest, digging up its own foundations.) One of the things about design thinking, as it should be utilised, is that it starts with the realisation that we don't yet know what the real problem is, and gives a way to begin to find out what it is. As Drucker said, "there is nothing more dangerous than a manager coming up with the right solution to the wrong problem."

I am a visual designer who values the use of design thinking to develop ideas quickly. A process can be valuable if understood because ideas don't only come from designers, they can come from anyone. Everyone brings their knowledge, biases, experiences, ideas into the discussion in an open and nonjudgmental manner to come up with a solution (conversion), and then branch out (diversion) from there. The method will push you to step outside your comfort zone resulting in results that are even better than expected. To see the potential of Design thinking, I think it must be experienced rather than read about or studied. This isn't only applicable to visual design; it applies to everything.

@pawansk11

9 ай бұрын

Dude, you won't get a time to experience/apply the design thinking process in your project. As a visual designer, you'll be asked to follow a particular pattern by the stakeholders of the company including product, Dev, Business & Design Lead... You can do usability testing (test) after launching the product but you will not aware about the correct problem statement until you launch the product. It's Create > Measure > Learn > Iterate

I agree with some of the comments below - while it is obvious that Ms. Jen has done her research, she is not a practitioner of Design Thinking, otherwise she would have understood that the Crit is part of the prototyping process. Design doesn't discriminate - it either works or it doesn't. In the Prototyping phase, the critique of the results or methods is an important part of the process to determine weak spots and areas that can be improved now or in the future. Always has been. Practitioners of Design Thinking understand this (like IDEO), whereas the general public do not and only look at the linear aspects of diagrams (like the hexagons) or think that the chaos of Post-its represents real Design Thinking. It doesn't.

The testing stage usually includes critique. It is also important to correct the speaker, no one has ever said DT is a linear process.

If as a design professional, you accept that "you are not your user" then having a Crit, which is getting subjective opinions from a group of opinionated designers is better than getting feedback from the users early and often, then you might be someone who is afraid to give up being an over-controlling-know-it-al-design-dictator.

"Real designers surround themselves with evidence" Thank you for blowing my mind.

I define Design Thinking as taking and idea(problem) through a designed process to get to a desired outcome(or solution). Companies and studios can have different ways of doing it.The design thinking field provides us tools to use that may get us where we want, by no means the only tools you can use but tools non the less. Tesla didn't even have to model to come up with his inventions (all within his vivid imagination) Non the less he also had a process.

I can understand where she is coming from. Because these days, many people coming from IT background with no design knowledge are "latching" on with all these buzzwords, by calling themselves as UX design team leads and such when they are just doing visual screens and interactive animations. Design thinking was not really bullshit in the past, it just needs refinement and those who aren't trained in design should not coined themselves as one in the spectrum of design. BTW, Charles and Ray Eames are the designers of the famous and iconic Eames lounge chair.

@hmosterhout7958

5 жыл бұрын

Industrial Design aside, "Design Thinking" has been latched onto by IT and corporations who have finally woken to the reality that coders and developers ARE NOT DESIGNERS. If this is what it takes for the recent and new found appreciation for true designers, then we all win.

Thanks for this Jen. The take away - "There is no design thinking without the crit. Surround your self with the evidence"

I’ll agree that design thinking is maybe not the most effective design solution, because it’s not supposed to be. However, design thinking is meant as a business solution. You need to zoom out. If you want a good design, you should get a designer, but if you want a chance at revolutionizing a business, that’s where design thinking helps. Not all solutions are a hit, but it’s an effort. She doesn’t understand what “prototype” is. Her definition of crit doesn’t apply here when prototypes are meant to be made quickly for user testing. User testing is “crit” here but she’s stuck in her box of understanding. It’s like me saying dinner = rice just because i grew up in an asian family and this is my reality and then telling those who don’t eat rice that what they eat is not really dinner. It’s like calling andy warhol a fake because he used commercial ways to create art. And what better “crit” is there than an actual response, like if you don’t like the product, users will walk away. No “i think” or any ambivalent phrases thrown around the room, it’s “i will use it” or “i won’t” by actions taken. That knowledge is far more valuable in my opinion. I hope more ppl try to challenge it because it’s healthy to have debates.

design thinking is such overacademized bullshit! I study software development, and In my first two semesters of uni I was forced to courses about it. I find that most principles and ideas in design thinking are ususally common sense, but then describing with academic lingo, so that normal people would'nt be able to understand

@DesignSprint

3 жыл бұрын

I think it’s really about who is teaching it right? Having a bad geography teacher doesn’t make it “academic BS” ;)

Pretty cool, pretty thought provoking. I think a lot of this stuff is and was born out of the pain of describing a messy and intuitive process to others. Codifying, as she described, for those who can’t even speak a language that we ourselves do not fully understand. For me, we still have messy divergent ways of thinking but it has walls and boundaries to some degree. Perhaps the critique is about how tightly constructing these walls are. Are they too tightly squeezed by the design-thinking method? In reality, there are time and financial pressures that the designer must navigate in communication with others.

I get that it is a buzz word that can be inappropriately applied, but it is unfortunate that Natasha didn't use Design Thinking to prepare this talk. She may have found examples where it really helps people, who are not doing design work on a daily basis, to come up with innovative solutions to actual problems. If she used what she calls Crit, which seems to be an inherent part of Design Thinking, she could have also improved the design (logic) of her presentation. I have seen Design Thinking engage people in solving challenging issues. Admittedly, if you apply it to "What colour we should paint the walls?" types of issues, it will likely be a waste of time.

i disagree. but it is important people challenge the status quo of how things are done. so, natasha, do your thing, prove the world wrong!

@sendokkkk

5 жыл бұрын

Wanna see simple use design thinking? Try to see this videos Its one of the best and simple for beginner kzread.info/dash/bejne/d46sksp-qtixqbw.html Really it is simple. Just discussed there

@dnyarv

4 жыл бұрын

it was "Restless reinvention" in Design Thinking

@Puleczech

3 жыл бұрын

The Dunning-Kruger curve pretty much proves the world wrong on this topic. You cannot turn non-designers into designers - let alone good ones - by running few workshops. It does not work with pilots, drummers, chefs, ice-hockey players, programmers....why do people think it works with design/ers?

She is an artist. She isn't a designer, she doesn't look at and fall in love with problems to solve. She has no empathy for the people, she loves beauty, evidence and critical view. She is focused on the 'word' DESIGN as a method that others force as a process, but it's messy, humans are messy and you must love the mess and not have 'graphic' design perfection to deeply understand and think through solving problems for people. The flippant remark about the painting on the wall was glossed over that 90% of kids were sedated because they were terrified, this took looking at the fear of children rather than focus on the people with the money and MRI analystst focused on perfect results. It's about SOLVING THE RIGHT PROBLEMS FOR THE RIGHT PEOPLE. Yes the method is over used and less understood by 'GRAPHIC DESIGNERS' like her.

@dustspark_

4 жыл бұрын

She is an award winning 'designer'. google her up.

Everyone's a 'designer' now. Which, philosophically, means no one is. Design Thinking is an attempt to codify a simplified, replicable suite of processes to democratise the BASELINE for designing things by everyone. These are a minuscule fraction of the many internal and external processes an experienced and disciplined Traditional Designer goes through to do their job. DT still has yet to compliment Traditional Design in many ways because of human error i.e. threatened ego, stubbornness, narcissism etc (on both sides of the equation). The bottom line is perception still is reality and Design Thinking is where the corporate perception is at with the checkbook for a lot of things right now. I see this evolving in 5 years to welcome Traditional Design back into the fold once businesses realise Design Thinking practitioners fall horribly short in key areas like Trad Designers did in others, inclusive rather than the elusive exclusivity of talent. DT industries are a great place for those who couldn't find a home in Traditional Design to flourish in though. Room for everyone! You can see it this way (exaggerated for effect): Trad Design is Individual Exceptionalism and Design Thinking is Socialist Pragmatism. I'm a fan of both and can't wait for the merger, call me a Design Liberalist.

Those bastards at Pentagram... what they need is one proper team building weekend to empathize, define, ideate, prototype and frickin' test the solution for the new sticky note color, damnit!

I’m a fan of Design Thinking since reading Tom Kelley in ‘97... Honestly, I’ve been in situations where it actually doesn’t work or is sabotaged from effectiveness solely based on the forceful nature or strong personalities of influential players, (i.e. money spenders). That’s my criticism... However, I don’t agree with most of the assertions here. In fact, some of the arguments point to Design Thinking as already being embedded in creative process like the web portal example. Hey, the methodology of Design Thinking is basically a series of defining steps that have essentially been used since the dawn of the wheel and this clip reaffirms that in my opinion. The list of precepts just help keep us from forgetting one or two of them.

Well, designers don't need design thinking because the process of getting a good design carried out by designers itself is design thinking without having to call it design thinking. The term design thinking emerged to explain to non-designers how a designer thinks. The five steps in design thinking seem neat and linear, but in fact, the iterations in each step make the whole process very chaotic. This is what non-designers need to prepare, because for designers, this is how they create great design works. As a designer I think you should also explain this part, Natasha :-)

Great presentation ! Design Thinking is for premium only. In an optimization or efficiency world you can't follow DT steps. The best DT is evolution which works only in real life.

I agree. It is a mindset, not a method - which is what agencies are selling these days. This is what naturally one should think. A ton of Visual UI Artists who want to be in product / ux design and don't have the required expertise hide behind the veil of design thinking. They fool employers and trivialize ux designers job.

Highly inspired by Natasha Jen. Critics play an important role in Design and are not always required to follow the Design thinking process. We are professionals and have grown up watching the industry from IE6 to Chrome, Small screen Desktop (800 x 600px) to large screens Imac's(1920px x 1080px), and Small screens phones (320px resolution) to (475px) widescreen sizes of mobile phone. Multiple years of consistent experience taught us how to define design guidelines, what the audience want, and how to achieve business requirements.

I think we can add the element of crit and proving does it solves the problem at every stage of design thinking rather than completely eleminating the "hexagon" ^-^

2:26 "Very linear particular methodology..." This title is clickbait. The basis of your argument sounds more like a personal preference (opinion) rather than a well-based hypothesis. A good argument would include how the points you made are causing issues and the proof to back it up (or a least a reference) else it's simply nitpicking. Critiques are already included in the process and how Google fetches images is unimportant. I agree that not all problems require Design Thinking but they can use it. The framework is best for complex problems. Solutions created by Design Thinking can seem obvious and effortless because that's what GOOD design is and good design is human-centered like Desing Thinking. Thank you for your talk and the opportunity to criticize it, the history of Design Thinking was informative.

Buen día. Cuantos profesionales viven del Design thinking? en mi opinión la metodología ya se encuentra implícita en las interacciones pre existentes de las diferentes industrias; si pretendes hacer de ella un proceso consciente, bastará con enfatizar algunos puntos, sin necesidad de hacerlo tangible ni documentar el proceso mental para llegar a los mismos o a mejores resultados incluso. Detrás de esta metodología (Así como de otras "novedades"), existe una estructura de marketing que alimenta consultores, capacitaciones, implementaciones, etc.

Spoken like a true artist, not a designer. Any "buzzword" that gets a designer a seat at the table, helping to make meaningful decisions that evoke change, sign me up.

I only can say a graphic designer listen to the business owner and do the job but a UX/Design Thinker is only called when the users study is needed. And that is the difference between both.

I get where she's coming from as a B Arch that's now doing UX design. A lot of UX designers dont know squat about design

Thanl you all very much

I think it all boils down to a Dunning-Kruger effect. Or more precisely the fact, that the "Design Thinking" package is sold in chunks large just about right to stop the pupil right after the start of the Dunning-Kruger curve. Design Thinking itself is a good thing. But the idea that "anyone can be a designer" in "six easy steps" or in a "weekend workshop" is absolutely false. Yes, anyone can be a designer or pilot or drummer....a shitty one.

Design thinking as buzzword is a fair critique of the current popularized D School approach. I do think however, Natasha Jen's point does not seem to understand the "design thinking" process in its entirety with regards to the "crit" process. Her talk presupposes that after a design thinking exercise somehow a product or service is never exposed to professional and expert evaluation and critique to see if it is a viable solution for whatever the problem was in the first place. Graphic design, brand identity, and marketing campaigns all seek to solve a problem for their clients and I am sure some level of design thinking goes into solving those visual problems as well, albeit in perhaps a different manifestation and approach. As a graduate of two different fine art programs I can say from my personal experience that the "crit" is not always productive or useful outside of making the artist/designer second guess their existence and desire to make anything at all. At its best, a crit helps the artist/designer question what they are making and why, which is essentially an internal "Design Thinking" process. At the end of the day Natasha is making a Zero Sum argument where there needn't be one.

Was in class and they where presenting this topic, did a Google search in class and second suggestions was this... Had no cracking in class 🤣🤣

If "Design Thinking" is so easy to apply that any professional can start 'designing', then ... - What are designers for? (be an industrial designer, graphic designer, fashion designer, etc.) - What is the true target audience of "Design Thinking? - What is its true purpose? - Aren't there other more effective design methods? Why are they not used? If anyone can take the trouble to explain it to me, I will be very grateful.

@ericstaass5718

3 жыл бұрын

don't waste your time its just a "tool" to assure client, - what could probably go wrong? you are in the team

taking about criticism after every step of design process, it happens in design firms, teams and among designers and who know the design process well and have done a lot using it, design process imo is just a frame work and is very subjective to the brief

She is right...there is a fundamental problem in the approach to Design Thinking. It just an aspect of society demanding a process or manual, sometimes (most of the times) problem solving is not linear. She is right in saying that most of what Design thinking is intuitive.

@Thomas-Maximus

5 жыл бұрын

Design Thinking is not linear. It's a repeating circle of iteration in many forms with many tools.

@supersmart671

5 жыл бұрын

True!! What she is concerned about the idea is too rigid. Sometimes (most of the times) great designs come from spontaneous and doing hands on design, rather getting bogged down in a complex process. I think this is what she is driving at. Steve Jobs is a good case in point!!

@theavangelist

5 жыл бұрын

a repetition of LINEAR CYCLES.

@Descalabro

5 жыл бұрын

@@supersmart671 That's her own misconception by building her statement over images found on Google.

Design thinking also doesn't describe creative invention where no 'problem' exists. How, for instance, does the invention of motion pictures fit in this model?

I might add that the Eames did apply design thinking--at the time it was design process. And sticky notes were not invented then! I'm surprised that Charles and Ray did not think to invent them since they support flexible criticism.