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
Translation is always a treason Translation is always a treason, and as a Ming author observes, can at its best be only the reverse side of a brocade—all the threads are there, but not the subtlety of color or design. But, after all, what great doctrine is there which is easy to expound? The ancient sages never put their teachings in systematic form. They spoke in paradoxes, for they were afraid of uttering half-truths. They began by talking like fools and ended by making their hearers wise. Lau Tzu himself, with his quaint humor, says, "If people of inferior intelligence hear of the Tao, they laugh immensely. It would not be the Tao unless they laughed at it." Okakura Kakuzō, The Book of Tea The work is what it means zen