Advertisement

The Varieties of Good Design

  • Salu Ylirisku
  • Mattias Arvola
Chapter
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

This chapter explores the philosopher and logician Georg Henrik von Wright’s metaethical treatise of the varieties of goodness in the context of design. von Wright investigated the use of the notion of ‘good’ in language, and he identified six kinds of goodness: namely utilitarian goodness, instrumental goodness, technical goodness, medical goodness, hedonic goodness, and the good of man. We discuss these different kinds of goodness in relation to six design traditions that we identify, namely conceptual design, usability design, engineering design, ergonomics design, experience design and sustainability design. We argue that the design traditions are grounded in different appreciations of goodness, and that designers and design researchers can benefit from a more precise discernment of values that underpin design processes and design critique in different traditions. von Wright’s treatise serves as a point of departure for the appraisal of the multifaceted and relational character of the idea of good design and of the values of design.

Keywords

Design Goodness Varieties of goodness Values Design traditions Virtues 

References

  1. Agger Eriksen, M. (2012). Material Matters in Co-designing: Formatting & Staging with Participating Materials in Co-design Projects, Events & Situations (Doctoral dissertation in interaction design). Malmö University, Malmö: Sweden.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. (2008). Design matters: the organisation and principles of engineering design. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Arvola, M. (2010). Interaction design qualities: theory and practice. In Proceedings of NordiCHI 2010 the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (pp. 595–598). Presented at the NordiCHI 2010, ACM Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1868982.
  4. Arvola, M. (2014). Interaktionsdesign och UX: Om att skapa en god användarupplevelse [Interaction design and UX: On creating a good user experience]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  5. Arvola, M., & Holmlid, S. (2015). User experience qualities and the use-quality prism. In Proceedings of the Fuzzy front end of experience design workshop. Presented at the The Fuzzy front end of experience design workshop, Espoo, Finland: VTT.Google Scholar
  6. Arvola, M., & Walfridsson, A. (2015). The Mediated Action Sheets: Structuring the Fuzzy Front-End of UX. In E. Kaasinen, H. Karvonen, Y. Lu, J. Varsaluoma, & H. Väätäjä (Eds.), Workshop Proceedings – The Fuzzy Front End of Experience Design. Presented at the The fuzzy front-end of experience design, Espoo, Finland: Teknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT. http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2015/T209.pdf
  7. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: A customer-centered approach to systems designs. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  8. Blomquist, Å., & Arvola, M. (2002). Personas in action: Ethnography in an interaction design team. (pp 197–200). ACM Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/572020.572044.
  9. Brandt, E. (2006). Designing exploratory design games: a framework for participation in Participatory Design? In PDC ‘06: Proceedings of the ninth conference on Participatory design (pp. 57–66). New York/Italy: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. Broadbent, D. E. (1957). Effects of noises of high and low frequency on behaviour. Ergonomics, 1(1), 21–29.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140135708964568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. (2002). Creating breakthrough products: Innovation from product planning to program approval. FT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, J. M. (2000). In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Making use : scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, cop.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiles, W. D. (1958). Effects of elevated temperatures on performance of a complex mental task. Ergonomics, 2(1), 89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140135808930404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper, A. (1999). Inmates are running the Asylum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. A Division of Macmillan Computer Publishing: SAMS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Damasio, A. R. (2000). The feeling of what happens: body and emotion in the making of consciousness (1. Harvest ed.) . San Diego: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  16. Das, B., & Grady, R. M. (1983). Industrial workplace layout design An application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics, 26(5), 433–447.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138308963360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desmet, P. (2002). Designing Emotions. Delft: Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  18. Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2002). The basis of product emotions. In W. Green & P. Jordan (Eds.), Pleasure with Products, beyond usability (pp. 60–68). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  19. Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 13–23.Google Scholar
  20. Dieckmann, D. (1958). A Study of the Influence of Vibration on Man. Ergonomics, 1(4), 347–355.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140135808964610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: create new thinking by design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Edworthy, J. (1997). Noise and its effects on people: an overview. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 51(4), 335–344.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207239708711091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fry, T. (2009). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Oxford: Berg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gottlieb, F., Larsen, H., & Sørensen, V. (2013). Multi stakeholder innovation. In Participatory Innovation Conference.Google Scholar
  25. Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 300–311.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3166.3170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grudin, J., & Pruitt, J. (2002). Personas, participatory design and product development: An infrastructure for engagement. In Proceedings of participatory design conference PDC2002.Google Scholar
  27. Hart, S., Jan Hultink, E., Tzokas, N., & Commandeur, H. R. (2003). Industrial Companies’ Evaluation Criteria in New Product Development Gates. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(1), 22–36.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.201003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., & Göritz, A. (2010). Needs, affect, and interactive products – Facets of user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 353–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hofman, H. F. (2000). Requirements Engineering A Situated Discovery Process. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:1111-20130220668. Accessed 9 March 2016.
  30. Hohnsbein, J., Pekarski, C., & Kampmann, B. (1983). Influence of high ambient temperature and humidity on visual sensitivity. Ergonomics, 26(9), 905–911.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138308963418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson, J., & Henderson, A. (2011). Conceptual models: Core to good design. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 4(2), 1–110.  https://doi.org/10.2200/S00391ED1V01Y201111HCI012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jordan, P. W. (1999). Pleasure with products: Human factors for body, mind and soul. In W. S. Green & P. W. Jordan (Eds.), Human factors in product design: current practice and future trends (pp. 206–217). UK: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  33. Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  34. Kamrani, A. K., & Nasr, E. A. (2010). Engineering design and rapid prototyping. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kang, J.-S., Lee, T.-Y., & Lee, D.-Y. (2012). Robust optimization for engineering design. Engineering Optimization, 44(2), 175–194.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2011.573852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kappas, A. (2006). Appraisals are direct, immediate, intuitive, and unwitting…and some are reflective…. Cognition & Emotion, 20(7), 952–975.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930600616080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keinonen, T. (2006). Introduction to Concept Design. In T. Keinonen & R. Takala (Eds.), Product concept design: A review of the conceptual design of products in industry (pp. 2–31). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Long, J., & Whitefield, A. (Eds.). (1989). Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-computer nteraction: An introduction. Cambridge [England]. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. McDonough, W., Braungart, M., & Kerry, T. H. (2003). The hannover principles: Design for sustainability. W. McDonough Architects.Google Scholar
  40. McLennan, J. F. (2004). The philosophy of sustainable design: the future of architecture. Kansas City: Ecotone.Google Scholar
  41. Moore, R. L. (1958). Headlight design. Ergonomics, 1(2), 163–181.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140135808964583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murrell, H. (1965). Ergonomics. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  43. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Nielsen, J. (1994). Guerrilla HCI: Using discount usability engineering to penetrate the intimidation barrier. In R. G. Bias & D. J. Mayhew (Eds.), Cost-justifying usability (pp. 245–272). Orlando: Academic Press, Inc. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=186524.186639.Google Scholar
  45. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Norman, D. (2003). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering design: A systematic approach (2nd ed..)  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3581-4. Accessed 27 Nov 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Polaine, A., Løvlie, L., & Reason, B. (2013). Service design: From insight to implementation. Brooklyn: Rosenfeld Media, LLC.Google Scholar
  49. Sanders, E. B.-N. (2002). Scaffolds for experiencing in the new design space. In Information design. http://maketools.com/pdfs/ScaffoldsforExperiencing_Sanders_03.pdf.Google Scholar
  50. Sandin Bülow, K. (2007). Design = Kvalitet? [Design = Quality?]. In L. Strannegård (Ed.), Den omätbara kvaliteten (pp. 56–76). Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
  51. Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2015). Consequentialism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition.). Stanford: The metaphysics research lab, center for the study of language and information (CSLI), Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/consequentialism/. Accessed 13 Dec 2015.Google Scholar
  53. Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P. D., Jäger, J., Matson, P. A., Moore, B., III, et al. (2005). Global change and the earth system: a planet under pressure. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Todd, N. J., Todd, J., & Todd, N. J. (1994). From eco-cities to living machines: principles of ecological design. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  55. Van der Ryn, S., & Cowan, S. (2010). Ecological design. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  56. von Wright, G. H. (1963). The varieties of goodness. Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. von Wright, G. H. (2001). Mitt liv som jag minns det. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers förlag.Google Scholar
  58. Winograd, T. (2006). Designing a new foundation for design. Communications of the ACM, 49(5), 71–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ylirisku, S. (2013). Frame it simple! Towards a theory of conceptual designing (Doctoral dissertation). Aalto University, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  60. Ylirisku, S., & Falin, P. (2008). Knowing in situated design action. In T. Keinonen (Ed.), Design connections: Knowledge, value, and involvement in design (pp. 8–17). Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.Google Scholar
  61. Ylirisku, S., Halttunen, V., Nuojua, J., & Juustila, A. (2009). Framing design in the third paradigm. In CHI ‘09: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 1131–1140). Presented at the CHI’09.Google Scholar
  62. Ylirisku, S., Jacucci, G., Sellen, A., & Harper, R. (2015). Design research as conceptual designing: The manhattan design concept. Interacting with Computers.  https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwv040.
  63. Ylirisku, S., & Vaajakallio, K. (2007). Situated make tools for envisioning ICTs with ageing workers. In Proceedings of Include 2007: designing with people conference. London: Royal College of Art.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalto UniversityDenmarkUK
  2. 2.Linköping UniversitySwedenUK

Personalised recommendations