Undoing the Toxic Dogmatism of Digital Design An Essay by Lisa Angela lisa-angela-fftv.medium.com Design educators and industry leaders have never reached a consensus about what comprises a “good enough” foundational education for digital design. We do not properly retire methods (or ways of conducting them) that have been shown to be ineffective. Design team seniority levels are meaningless. We’ve collectively lost the safety (and subsequently the desire) to explore and fail. We afford well-known design leaders too much power to dictate how design is discussed and conducted. We have no ethical standards. Inclusive design and accessibility are afterthoughts — both in design education and in practice. Design Discourse is in a State of Arrested DevelopmentWaking up from the dream of UXSermon for WIAD Bristol 2021On Design Thinking ethicsuxsoftware
Separation of surface and structure The nineteenth century saw an increasing separation between the treatment of the surface and the structure of designed objects. Mass production and a mobile market economy encouraged the production of heavily ornamented yet cheaply fabricated products. Affordable manufacture allowed the burgeoning middle class to acquire “luxury” goods fashioned after objects formerly reserved for an elite. Ellen Lupton & J. Abbott Miller, The ABC's of ▲■●: The Bauhaus and Design Theory The drop press structurematerial