Stages of
design are noted, one for example, being the creative process. Consisting of 5 steps, firstly we have first insight - the formualtion of the problem, followed by preparation - a conscientious and fully involved attempt at a soloution, incubation - no conscious effort, then illumination - a sudden idea, and lastly verification - which allows committed development work. Further design processes are featured in the latter stages of the book too, for example alternatives, and individuality/team work.
We learn the design process is often fuelled by problems, and thereafter solutions are reached. Yet sometimes problems emerge in regards to the very solution you propose. Lawson indicates that the best possible way to resolve this is to assume problems and solutions evolve together, and use this idea to journey through the design process. Obviously, the holy grail we all search for is a solution that unanimously tackles current issues along with any potential ones. If this were to occur your design could, in time gone by, be considered a 'classic'. However the likelihood of this actually occuring is not always the norm, more a minority in fact.
One important comment made is that design it what you wish something to be, what it could be, you are procasinating at your view of the future. Science converseley, is all about what is it, how and why. Lawson notes that time passes throughout any design process, and so solutions provided may end up being behind the initial brief, but as a safeproof may also need to consider and tackle future troubles as well.
Primarily the client and the user are the main focus, perhaps the user even more so. He claims that in the designer position it is sometimes hard to create the perfect response (this in itself is actually not possible, with there being no infinite end to the process, but instead an arrival at a decision that further effort and work would yield minimal progress) due to lack of information, or not having direct contact with the user. Clients may be able to refer what their user groups need sorting, yet it is the user who has to utilise such new designs, and so may have more knowledgable incite than originally anticipated.
Further afield there are also legislative constraints, then symbolic, internal and external, along with practical considerations, with varying degrees of flexibility, upto and including rigidity depending upon which end of the scale you are at.
Lastly, in regards to evaluation, with this being design, and not science, it is more difficult to fulfil a successfulness criteria. Therefore, it becomes a subjective decision, weighing in the advantages and disadvantages to pervey the value of the final outcome. What somebody likes will not necessarily be the same taste for another, and so really the most evolved answer comprises of your own contentment, critical reviews, and then the market response, to truly judge your success.
@
