contents

I. An Introduction to An Incomplete List of D-Words for Designerly Domains

D-word sections

1. Divergence
2. Discovery
3. Discursivity
4. Dialogic
5. Drawing
6. Desire
7. Data
8. Doing
9. Distraction
10. Dignity
11. Delta (knowledge)
12. Documentation
13. Dynamism

See Also: An Illustrative Introduction to a Curious Compendium of Incomplete Lists for Productive Practice

—

An Introduction to An Incomplete List of d-Words for designerly domains

In 1970, John Chris Jones¹ (1927–2022), a Welsh design researcher and theorist, published the first edition of his seminal book Design Methods. Indeed, Jones is viewed as one of the founders of the design methods² movement. Jones’ book was eventually translated into Japanese, Romanian, Polish, Russian, and Spanish, and a second edition was published in 1992. In the abstract of the second edition, Jones indicates that the book has two parts. Jones describes Part 1 as “a review of ancient and modern design methods from craft evolution and design-by-drawing to the logical, scientific and creative techniques that have been developed to assist designers and planners in recent years.”^3|4 While Jones’ description of Part 1 might suggest a somewhat historical discourse, the author starts by walking the reader through the general but evolving process of design. For students in this introductory design course, with this short reference in mind, one might assume a historical analysis akin to that in a design history course—but that was not the case. Instead, Jones and his contemporaries seemed to be sowing the seeds for more critical analysis of design itself: a maturing field that today we most commonly refer to as “design studies.”⁵ Within Part 1, in a section on “The Developing Design Process,” Jones interrogated past, present, and future-oriented definitions of design and, moreover, the essential question: What is Designing? After presenting readers with a host of varied definitions, Jones concludes that “the effect of designing is to initiate change in man-made things.”⁶ ¶ Let us pause from the past for a moment and jump to the present. In the 21st century, we are surrounded by design: from environments to communication to experiences and more. As such, one might assume that, since most humans are literally surrounded by design, there would be a present-day correlation between the importance of design in our lives and our general understanding of it through education. But this is not the case. While design, as a practice, area of study, and a way of thinking, has come a very long way over the past century, it may be said with confidence that we have a long way to go. For now, as was noted in An Illustrative Introduction to a Curious Compendium of Incomplete Lists for Productive Practice, we will explore what I described as the design-dependency dearth-discourse dilemma. ¶ Don’t let the playful alliteration fool you: this longstanding dilemma draws attention to an essential deficit or “gap” in our common or general knowledge. With rare exception, the study of “design” methods is absent from most mainstream educational journeys. But when we map that deficit or gap onto our dependence on design, a whole host of cultural, social, and epistemological questions emerge. If, in our present day, we are literally surrounded by that which is designed (environments, interactions, systems, products, experiences, communication, policy, and more), should we not have a shared fundamental understanding of design and its importance? As John Heskett noted in this 2002 book Design: A Very Short Introduction, “One of the most curious features of the modern world is the manner in which design has been widely transformed into something banal and inconsequential.”⁷ Against this reality, like this list maker, Heskett attempts to elevate design discourse when he states, “In contrast, I want to argue that, if considered seriously and used responsibly, design should be the crucial anvil (emphasis added) on which the human environment, in all its detail, is shaped and constructed for the betterment and delight of all.”⁸ This notion of design, as the crucial anvil, in many ways underpins the core raison d’être for this d-word list—to meaningfully engage in the intersections of design and critical thinking and to posit this intersection as an essential facet of shared human understanding. Said another way, if one wishes to thoughtfully question why things are designed the way they are, by whom, for what purpose, and for whose benefit—then they need to understand design. Who then does not need to understand design? ¶ With these issues and opportunities in mind, this list maker hereby extends an invitation into the fascinating fold of design study and practice. Doing so, however, requires a shift in pedagogical mindsets. This lofty and well-meaning ambition is somewhat problematized by several factors. One issue is the dynamic quality of design as a term, subject, and field. Design, as a field—our tools, theories, and practices—seem always to be shifting—as new technologies and forms for designing emerge. As but one example. Today, thousands of people work full-time as UX (User Experience) designers—but before the 1990s this term did not even exist. Instead of resisting this dynamic reality, designers should embrace and attempt to understand it. ¶ A second interconnected concern those posited above centers on the somewhat confusing “territory” of design. This latter concern is evidenced by widespread misconceptions about design, especially in popular culture. Outside of scholarly debates and sometimes within them, some see design as an art, and for some it is a science—even worse for some, design is viewed as “style” or “decoration.” As we will see, under the label “design thinking,” design found some footing in business as a way to generate new ideas and build consensus. Fields such as engineering, architecture, and more also find merit and identity within this domain of design. Discourses around design’s epistemological place thus seem liminal, dynamic, and unsettled. Interestingly, this “unsettled” or alterplinary^9|10 quality may be one of the key qualities or benefits of design-based approaches. Attempting to settle epistemological issues here would unnecessarily detract from this list’s purpose: to further cultivate design as a broad area of interest, skill, and literacy. ¶ With Jones’ seminal text as a touchstone and backdrop, An Incomplete List of D-Words for the Designerly Domains uses each d-word section below to explore and present an incomplete set of considerations that are typical to designing and design. Part 2 of Jones’ book explored “Design Methods in Action,” which examines design-oriented strategies and situations that expand on the divergent, convergent, and transformation-oriented qualities of design. Indeed, we will briefly explore these qualities. As one example within a chapter titled “Methods of Exploring Problem Structure (Transformation),” Jones includes a section on Functional Innovation (labeled Method 5.6).¹¹ This section is as refreshing now as it likely was then, in that Jones avoids vanilla step-by-step process-oriented formulas for innovation—and instead describes the methods and goals of Functional Innovation, which Jones suggested seeks “a radically new design capable of creating new patterns of behavior and demand.”¹² Jones then provides readers with three examples, which he describes as “not case histories but retrospective attempts to find a plan of action that could lead from existing designs to the well-known innovations that followed them.”¹³ For his first example, Jones uses a safety razor. Interestingly, the first step in each example showcases the designers’ identification of “the Functions of Each Physical Component of an Existing System.”¹⁴ This is recounted here to in part to reflect upon what Jones could not likely foresee in the mid-to-late 20th century: just how radically the design field would shift and expand. While some designers still design safety razors, “design” now encompasses the intentional prefiguration, development, and refinement of interfaces, interactions, experiences, communication, spaces, services, systems, and more. Thus, design, as a broad domain, encapsulates a multifaceted and applied process “into, through, and for”¹⁵ innumerable artifacts, systems, and experiences. Although Jones’ book may feel slightly dated now, I will continually refer to it in this d-word section, as we likewise posit “new methods […] presented as an extension of the methods of the past.”¹⁶

designerly doing, thinking, knowing and being

This list-maker might assume that most students in this course have never encountered the term “designerly.” Likewise, it may be safe to assume that you have yet to stumble upon the somewhat more common phrase “design thinking.” We will return to this latter phrase later. For now however, seeing that this list maker has so prominently elevated the term “designerly” by using it in the title of these lists, we should briefly explore and discern its origin and meaning. ¶ The term designerly first appeared in the 1982 journal article “Designerly ways of knowing.”¹⁷ The article was authored by the British academic, design researcher, and educator Nigel Cross.¹⁸ It’s likely no surprise to readers of this list that Cross worked with John Chris Jones at the [then new] Open University¹⁹ (OU) in 1970.²⁰ Around this time, Jones, Cross, and others seemed to be asking another essential question: what makes designers designerly? Cross’s aforementioned 1982 paper provides clear clues that seem to be standing the test of time. To better understand all things designerly, this list maker suggests starting with a particularly significant word frequently used by Cross. That word is solution. In fact, in his relatively short paper on all things designerly, Cross used the term “solution” sixteen times.²¹ Fortunately, in their use of and explorations into “solutions,” Jones and Cross seemed to avoid all too common notions of solutionism,²² or blanket notions that technology or design could, will, or would solve all our problems. ¶ Cross’ oft-cited 1982 paper curiously stated that “Essentially, we can say that designerly ways of knowing rest on the manipulation of non-verbal codes in the material culture.”²³ The curiosness of this statement yields an obvious question: how in the world would one “know” something if it has not been verbalized? Along these lines, Cross also states, “There is a great wealth of knowledge carried in the objects of our material culture.”²⁴ Alas, as we will see, designerly doers sometimes make things to know things, and as much as they know things to make things. Likewise, it is fair to say that we understand much about humans from careful examinations of their environments and artifacts—even when texts are not present. ¶ In the early 1970s, scholars, especially in architecture, also began probing questions around how designers and architects so deftly solve problems. For example, this is evident, if not directly reflected, in Bryan R. Lawson’s 1972 Ph.D. thesis “Problem-Solving in Architectural Design.”²⁵ Building upon such questions, Cross put forward “five aspects of designerly ways of knowing.”²⁶ The first was that “Designers tackle ‘ill-defined’ problems.” The second suggests that the designer’s problem-solving mode is “solution-focused.” The third is that our mode of thinking is “constructive.”²⁷ ¶ As designers and design moved into the 21st century, this latter suggestion—that design is a mode of thinking—seems to have garnered a wildly popular following and a somewhat unfathomable trajectory and level of interest, especially for those concerned with innovation. It would seem that even Cross could not have imagined or predicted what became a bit of a “design thinking” craze. For better or worse, this trajectory of design thinking as an innovative process is reflected upon and addressed in Cross’ aptly titled 2023 paper, “Design thinking: What just happened?” in which he parses the all-too-confusing differences between “designerly thinking” (noted earlier) and “design thinking.”²⁸ Cross underpins his argument with similar critical distinctions by design scholars such as Laursen and Haase (2019).²⁹ For better or worse, “design thinking” remains far more common than the somewhat more useful and scholarly term designerly. In summary, “design thinking” has come to represent a simplified, easy-to-follow step-by-step version of the design process [more on this in the divergence section]. “Designerly thinking,” on the other hand, encapsulates a more nuanced notion of how designers think, act, and know. ¶ Lastly, and before we delve right into our d-words, this list maker should also provide some further insight into the intentional choice of the term “Domain” in the titling of this list. As one might surmise, some viable alternatives were fields and disciplines. Here, the designerly list-maker’s dilemma is twofold. The first concern lies in the “how” versus the “what” of design. A discipline is generally viewed as a branch of knowledge—one that is commonly researched, explored, and taught at the university level. So, through this narrow lens design is a discipline or a grouping of disciplines. This disciplinary stature signals the how and what, but as we consider the “who” and “where” of designers and design, things get messy. As an enormous-tent term, this list-maker might contend that design might be considered a discipline, a domain, or both, depending on the context.³⁰ In more established design fields such as graphic design and architecture, design is viewed as a defined discipline with well-defined processes, methods, and principles. But for newer designerly domains, alongside these more established ones, design is sometimes viewed as a broad humanistic territory, process, and mode of thought. One, somewhat indirect inspiration for this list maker’s choice of “domain” can be found in the introduction to a paper published by Design Issues in 2026. In “Novelty ≠ Creativity: The Problem of Psychological Measurement in Design Practice and Education,” by Jon Kolko, the first sentence reads, “In design-forward domains, [emphasis added] such as interaction design, creativity and cognition, and human-computer interaction, creativity has been extensively explored through multiple scholarly lenses.”³¹ For the purposes of this d-word list, “domains” also serves as shorthand Kolko’s notion of design-forward domains. To be clear, and while it may be assumed, additional “design-forward domains” not listed by Kolko could and should be included. ¶ This discourse around design’s disciplinary expansiveness and cogency is explored and debated in countless articles, presentations, and texts. One worth noting here is a Chapter titled “Time for Change: Building a Design Discipline.” First published in 2009, Sharon Helmer Poggenpohl’s Chapter in Design Integrations notes that “Design is a term that encompasses many sub-forms or specific sub-disciplines, but unlike biology, design is not well organized.”³² Poggenpohl also notes something that this list maker has long observed, that “Design sub-disciplines tend to be isolated from each other and to look only internally at their own development.”³³ ¶ For students of design history, this fragmented state of design as a discipline may seem somewhat perplexing, seeing that more unified instruction and approaches to design existed in the not-too-distant past. The most prominent of these schools was the highly influential Bauhaus.³⁴ Alas, Poggenpohl and scores of others seem to be calling for a rethinking of design education. Ideally, such rethinking might more comprehensively recognize “the changing modes of design and the shifting forms of user experience.”³⁵ As such, the scholarly contributors to Design Integrations call for “new methods of approach that focus on interdisciplinary collaboration between the academic and business worlds, and an appropriate understanding of research opportunities.”³⁶ Along these lines, designers and design seem to be continually moving towards a facilitative and integrative capacity and stance. In their 2026 book Guiding Principles for Inclusive Design Values, Berry et al. describe contemporary designers as having the capacity to explore, facilitate, and negotiate communities, culture, ideas, values, and more. In a section on community and culture, the authors state that designers [and design educators] can, “Serve as a ‘bridge-maker’ who makes essential ideas and concepts clear in ways that have the potential to be understood by a broad audience.”³⁷ ¶ Unfortunately, such a concise d-word primer cannot do justice to the long, vast history of design, its methods and its possible futures. Understandably, many design texts focus on artifacts, which sometimes yield narrowly curated collections of people, objects, and movements. As such, some of these texts gloss over the more complex evolution of design’s methods, research, processes, and theories. Likewise, many architecture and design books, especially monographs, are directly or indirectly funded, published, or influenced by marketers and marketing efforts. Some of these texts are also devoid of critical design discourses, or, to put it another way, why the work matters, or why readers should care. Alas, these books also have their place, on coffee tables, in museum gift shops, or otherwise. ¶ The aforementioned split state of publishing in design was echoed by Guy Julier in his book The Culture of Design, first published in 2000. Julier described the discipline as having “two methodological predicaments.”³⁸ Akin to this list-maker’s notion of the coffee-table book, Julier described this as “popular design history”—which, as Julier emphasized, “design style over process or social impact.”³⁹ Julier contrasts this with “academic design historians [that] had aligned themselves with Material Culture studies during the 1990s.”⁴⁰ Julier suggests that such scholars were more concerned with “the significance of objects in the everyday lives of people.”⁴¹ Fortunately, thanks to a whole host of emerging writers and scholars, some of whom you will find cited in this list, the latter concern of presenting design in ways that bridge Julier’s aforementioned predicaments has steadily become a wider subject of interest to a wider academic and non-academic audience alike. ¶ Another notable testament to this evolution and shift is Donald (Don) Norman’s⁴² well-known book The Design of Everyday Things.⁴³ When it was first published in 1988, the word “design” was not even part of the title, as the book was initially titled The Psychology of Everyday Things. As echoed in several of the sections that follow, The Design of Everyday Things seemed to provide a timely primer on how design can create both delight and frustration. ¶ Another recent example of this bridged approach is Maggie Gram’s timely 2025 book The Invention of Design: A Twentieth-Century History. As is noted right in the book’s description, “Design has penetrated every dimension of contemporary society, from classrooms to statehouses to corporate boardrooms.”⁴⁴ Alas, I very much share Gram’s [also a designer] view, when she states plainly, “I think what I do is interesting and challenging, and sometimes worthwhile. But I don’t think it’s coherent.”⁴⁵ ¶ This aforementioned lack of coherence is but one reason for this designerly, literature-review-style annotated d-word list. Fortunately, a host of design scholars and researchers continue to pave new paths for designerly ways of doing, thinking, knowing, and being. One timely text, among many that could be cited here, is Navigating the Landscapes of Design Research (2026), edited by Michael R. Gibson and Keith M. Owens. In their Introduction, Gibson and Owens suggest that “at its core, design research consists of three irreducibly connected elements: discovery, decision, and action.”⁴⁶ For more advanced design practitioners, Gibson and Owens’s timely text may serve as a next step in regard to recommended readings. The first chapter, authored by Gibson and Owens, is aptly titled, “Why We Need Design Research More than Ever.”⁴⁷ Following each section, the editors provide useful and concise definitions of key designerly terms. Along these lines, as this design educator has learned, we cannot assume that students, clients, or those otherwise new to design will know what we mean when we use terms such as “prototype” in the context of design projects, methods, and practice. ¶ Alas, if design as research is further afield, design-interested readers might consider picking up Penny Sparke’s An Introduction to Design and Culture, which, at the time of this writing, is now in its fifth edition (2026). Since the first edition of Sparke’s book was published in 1986, much has changed in design, culture, technology, and the world, yet over many years Sparke has focused on what might be considered the key pillars of design. As Sparke notes in her introduction, “The same five themes – consumption/technology/designers/theory/identities–define the underlying structure of this book as it has appeared in all five editions.”⁴⁸ Unlike Sparke’s focus on key pillars, the following primer offers readers a mix of design history and practical perspectives. As the title suggests, they are, like many forms of design, far from complete. Thus, as a brief but practical primer into a designerly world, I present An Incomplete List of D-words for Designerly Domains.

D-Words

1. Divergence: Let’s briefly return to Jones’s Design Methods. In Chapter 5, Jones described design as a three-stage process. Here, I might also note that the design process is design-problem-dependent—meaning that what it looks like, how it is constructed, and how it unfolds is shaped by its goals and intents—what is being designed, how, and by whom. Alas, I am not alone in presenting this view.⁴⁹ With that somewhat obvious assertion aside, some design methods seem more common than others. Remarkably, Jones seemed to be aware of these more salient design methods, processes, and qualities. As Jones curated these essential processes and factors, he noted that, “One of the simplest and most common observations about designing, and one upon which many writers agree, is that it includes the three essential stages of analysis, synthesis and evaluation [emphasis added].”⁵⁰ But as Jones goes on to describe, “The three stages […] do not necessarily fit together to form a universal strategy….”⁵¹ Jones ultimately relabels these stages, “divergence, transformation and convergence.”⁵² ¶ Design practitioners and educators alike often refer to various visual diagrams⁵³ meant to communicate the design process at a glance. Perhaps the most prominent of these diagrams is informally called the Double Diamond^{54 |55} (Fig. 1). In its most common formulation, the Double Diamond diagram presents the design process as moving through two major divergent-convergent phases. The first phase typically moves from “Discover” to “Define,” while the second moves from “Develop” to “Deliver.” ¶ In An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course, we briefly explored and reflected upon notions of convergence.⁵⁶ Here, we briefly posit convergence’s big-tent dialogic nemesis, divergence. To diverge generally means to move away or disperse from a common point or path, or to generally move in varied directions. In designerly and creative work, divergence might suggest but is not limited to: a) approaching a singular project or problem simultaneously using multiple designers or multiple teams, b) looking at the problem through varied or expanded contexts, lenses, or frames, or c) using a varied combination of methods, precedents, iterations, and mediums to formulate and triangulate various concepts and ideas. With this in mind, the need for convergence and its cousin synthesis is clear. ¶ Unfortunately, at least in design, some tend to overly simplify notions of divergence by merely equating it to “brainstorming.” While brainstorming may work for some, this list-maker has found it often shortchanges or oversimplifies the design process.⁵⁷ If we once again refer back to Jones’ Design Methods, we see that in the section on divergence, the author specifies that the term “refers to the act of extending the boundary [emphasis added] of a design situation [emphasis added] so as to have a large enough, and fruitful enough, search space [emphasis added] in which to seek a solution.”⁵⁸ ¶ Note the language Jones uses when describing notions of designerly divergence—there is a boundary, a situation, and a space that help constrain desinerly divergence as an effective mode of problem solving and thought. Jones also states that designers should “deliberately increase their uncertainty, to rid themselves of preconceived solutions, and to reprogram their brains with a mass of information that is thought to be relevant.”⁵⁹ In practice, this is harder said than done, for it has been said that occasionally the designer’s first idea is the best idea, and likewise, oftentimes it is the worst. ¶ It would seem that Jones knew something that some contemporary designers and educators all too often forget: that “the design process” is oftentimes a non-linear space rather than a linear [step-by-step] method. Thus, like Jones and others, I encouraged students to see design as a highly dynamic space (physical and/or intellectual) where various actors, media, materials, and methods can mix.⁶⁰ ¶ But why is any of this important for students in this course? As Kees Dorst notes in the “Design Intelligence” Chapter of Design Integrations, “More and more companies, governments, and institutions are turning towards the field of design for help.”⁶¹ Design seems to productively unite the hand, head, and heart. While this is sometimes overly romanticized, this latter point is, of course, one reason designers are often viewed as productive, curious, and “studious.” And if you want to be studious, you will need to be open to discovery.
   
   
2. Discovery: Marjorie Elliott Bevlin (1917–2009) was an American artist, author, and educator best known for her contributions to art and design education. Bevlin is widely recognized for her 1967 book Design Through Discovery, which was likely a required text for thousands of art and design students—mostly at the college level. Across six editions and three abridged versions, Bevlin’s book analyzed the elements and principles of two-dimensional and three-dimensional design. According to Bevlin’s obituary⁶² during World War II, she worked for the naval architecture firm of Gibbs and Cox in New York City. She was one of only 12 women in the firm. It seems only fitting, then, that as we commence our deep dive into design, we start with Bevlin and her somewhat dated, but still insightful and beloved book. ¶ In the Preface to the first edition, Bevlin notes that her book “is intended as a threshold, and opening through which the beginning design student may pass into exhilarating new worlds.”⁶³ While such language may sound fluffy to some, design is very much about world-building—whether it is exhilarating or not is a matter of perspective. Interestingly, in the Preface to her last (6th) edition, Bevlin also states, “Accepting the fact that the world often seems arbitrary and chaotic, designers seek, through personal associations and imagery, a sphere in which they can induce order, a harmony reached through the sensitive application of the elements and principles of design [emphasis added]”⁶⁴ Even in the present day, in design-education it is not uncommon for instructors to casually refer to the elements and principles—such languge is likley passed down if not rooted in the teachings of educators such as Bevlin. ¶ In each edition of Design Through Discovery, Belvin seems to have maintained a concerted emphasis on “the limitless inspiration nature offers the design.”⁶⁵ Let us briefly interpret these words, and as an extreme, let’s take Bevlin’s notion of “limitless inspiration” seriously. If we stop, listen, look, and explore the world, inspiration, especially in nature or “the natural world,” is vast and limitless. If we conversely interpret Belvin’s nature-oriented statement more rationally, one path of arrival would be what contemporary designers and scholars refer to as “biomimetics” or “biomimicry.”⁶⁶ Beyond nature as inspiration, by intentionally emphasizing discovery, Belvin viewed design not as a rigid discipline but as an observational connection to a natural order awaiting investigation. Thus, a Belvinistic view of design is akin to being an active explorer of nature, order, behavior, form, and more. Indeed, if we glance once more at Belvin’s first edition, she reveals her hope that the reader might “learn to make discoveries [emphasis added] of his own.”⁶⁷ As a big-tent term and very much like design, discovery can be used to describe either a process or a product. It is no surprise, then, that in disciplines as diverse as product development, software engineering, design, science, law, and more, methods around, or discrete phases of “discovery”⁶⁸ are consistently referenced. ¶ While not the focus of this review, a wide variety of learning opportunities arrive at the intersection of design and discovery. In fact, one can find an entry for “Discovery Learning” in the Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, where this mode of learning is described as “a general instructional approach that represents the first broad development of constructivist learning for school-based learning environments.”⁶⁹ Constructivist⁷⁰ theories of learning, championed by Jean Piaget⁷¹ and others, suggest that humans do not passively absorb information like an empty cup being filled. Instead, they actively build (or construct) their own understanding based on their unique experiences, what they already know, and their interactions with the world. With its emphasis on building knowledge and understanding, we can easily see how notions of design and discovery help inform methods of active learning.⁷² ¶ Under the big tent intersection of design and discovery, we find additional flavors of learning, including learning by design, design-based learning, project-based learning, problem-based learning, action research, and more. It is no wonder then that design is often cited as a “catalyst for learning.”⁷³ ¶ A final design and discovery-minded trait worth noting is that while designers use discovery as a problem-solving mindset, they likewise use it as a problem-finding mindset.⁷⁴ Along these lines, with design and discovery as mindsets, one is given a reasonable amount of space to explore and uncover what’s possible—to explore unexpected solutions that a strictly linear process might miss or not afford. ¶ But how might we exercise discovery as a method or mindset? Next, we will explore two design and discovery-oriented d-words that further these exploratory ideas: the discursive and the dialogic. Not to digress, but let’s start with the former.
   
   
3. Discursivity: Like two stones skipping as one across a pond, design history is dotted with designerly duos who together have made lasting ripple-like impacts. From Charles and Ray Eames,⁷⁵ to Massimo and Lella Vignelli,⁷⁶ and more, these double-doses of design have helped shape our products, communication, spaces and more. My point in commencing with this off-topic bit of design history is, in part, to illustrate the very principle we are about to explore. Discursivity, or the quality of being “discursive,” is in part a way to describe that which is adjacent or indirect. As a big-tent term, the meaning of discursivity varies across disciplines. Along these lines, the term is somewhat odd in that it can have somewhat opposing meanings. On the one hand, the term can suggest being marked by a reduction in complexity through analytical reasoning; on the other hand, it can indicate rambling or bouncing around between topics. The Latin roots of the term (from dis and curro)—which translate roughly to “run about” suggest a formal discourse in which concepts are conjoined or “run through.”⁷⁷ This notion of “running through” ideas and formally evaluating them has long resonated with designers. ¶ Why discusivity resonates with designers is not conclusive, but his list-maker might suggest that the answer lies less in how design is produced and more in how design is analyzed. As such, “discursive design” is less about “objects of use” and more about objects as springboards for discourse. Let’s pause and agree—at first, notions of discursive design, especially for those new to the field, may seem a bit odd. But once we back things out a bit, readers may realize that they have likely encountered notions of discursive design without even knowing it. ¶ First, let’s circle back to Jones’ aforementioned description of design, “to initiate change in man-made things.”⁷⁸ If the goal is to initiate change, then in some ways the actual artifact is, or at least could be, irrelevant. Next, let’s circle back to what we learned in the critique⁷⁹ section of An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course. Within this c-word section, this list maker suggested that critique “has long served as the touchstone for how creatives interrogate ideas, form, materials, solutions, and more.”⁸⁰ ¶ With these design critique-oriented ideas in mind, one way to begin positing notions of discursive design might be to imagine going through the critique process without actually producing the real “thing”—the artifact, experience, system, or service being critiqued. Another way to posit this might be to actually make a thing whose chief goal is the resultant dialog it might foster. If this all sounds like science fiction, you are actually not that far off. ¶ Let’s now add to our aforementioned short list of designerly duos as this list-maker further introduces notions of discursive design. This next designerly duo I want to introduce is Bruce M. and Stephanie M. Tharp. At the time of this literature review, both Tharps teach at the University of Michigan’s School of Art & Design. The Tharp’s are mentioned at this discursive juncture because of their 2018 book Discursive Design: Critical, Speculative, and Alternative Things. At the outset of Chapter 1, the Tharp’s contend that, “Discursive design’s primary agenda is to convey ideas.”⁸¹ ¶ Rightfully so, after exploring our c-word section on concepts, students in this course might say, “Well, lots of things convey ideas.” This is indeed a valid point, and moreover, one that leads us to ask what makes discursive design different? One easy way to posit discursivity is to further elevate the root word: discourse. As noted above, design as discourse may yield an artifact, but not always. In addition to the critical, speculative, and alternative areas reflected in the subtitle of Discursive Design, the authors also explore notions of “design fiction.”⁸² Within the domain of design, this is where the disciplines of film, media, and design begin to collide. Said more plainly, just like science fiction helps us imagine the future through cinema, sometimes interrogating or producing an imagined thing helps us imagine the real thing and its possible implications. ¶ At first, this notion of producing artifacts and ideas to provoke new ways of thinking may seem a bit odd, but in many ways, architects, designers, and other creatives have always worked this way. For any given solution, artifact, product, or plan, there are often countless prototypes, presentations, drafts, edits, options, and alternative proposals that the public never sees. We might thus imagine these design-process-oriented conversations as valuable media or material. Thus, in some ways, discursive approaches such as critical design⁸³ merely bring language, attention, research, and space to these sometimes hidden practices. ¶ With notions of discursivity in mind, it may come as no surprise to hear that many designers and design studios often describe their process as interrogative. One of my previous design directors frequently described this interrogative process as “poking holes in the design.” By “poking holes,” I believe he meant attempting to identify potential issues and opportunities as the project or design develops—ideally before it is produced. This interrogative approach to design comes in various flavors, including human-centered design,⁸⁴ participatory design,⁸⁵ and more. No matter what it’s called, such language indicates a shift away from a solitary “operating in a vacuum” model of design towards one rooted in discourse, reflection, analysis, and dialogue. In response to this, our next big-tent d-word briefly explores these intertwined notions of design, dialogue, and logic, or what some simply call dialogic.
   
   
4. Dialogic: In the Conclusion of her 2018 book Design Theory to Go, Sharon Helmer Poggenpohl⁸⁶ primarily argues for two things. The first concern centers around access to design as a subject of study. As Poggenpohl states “design is a shared process that is important to understand beyond the restrictions of any sub-discipline….”⁸⁷ The second concern is aimed at the subject of our design efforts. Regarding this latter concern, the author states, “designers need to step up to addressing more significant human problems that go beyond the tight tradition and limitations of these sub-disciplines.”⁸⁸ In support of these two gestures, as the book title suggests, Poggenpohl’s text provides readers with a highly digestible set of considerations that encourage designers to “take a larger, more holistic approach to design.”⁸⁹ ¶ As we delve into the dialogic, one of Poggenpohl’s 24 “theories to go,” Rhetoric and Prototype, seems to fuse two designerly concerns into one interwoven section that deals with designerly ways of communicating and evaluating. This list maker assumes that Poggenpohl thus viewed these two concerns as interdependent. In one subsection, Poggenpohl describes rhetoric as “a civic approach to practical rationality and judgment.”⁹⁰ This contextual definition helps encapsulate Poggenpohl’s somewhat pragmatic link between rhetoric and designing. To better understand this link, we might posit Poggenpohl’s later statement, which indicates that “prototypes are a demonstration of an idea that requires deliberation and judgment.”⁹¹ ¶ While a full reading of Poggenpohl’s section would be prudent, even with these fragments, some timely questions emerge. Are designers makers, thinkers, facilitators, or all three? If [professional] designers are also design facilitators, are they properly trained or equipped to take on such roles? If not, how might we [educators] develop designerly facilitation and deliberation as a literacy, competency, or skill? ¶ As readers recall, such evaluative and epistemological questions are also briefly explored in the countenance and complexity sections of An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course. Within the section on complexity, this list-maker briefly mentions Edgar Morin and a 2008 English translation of his writings concerning complexity. It was within a section of On Complexity titled “Paradigm of Complexity” that this list maker more seriously pondered the term dialogic—frequently used by Morin, but not concerning design per se. In its simplest form, the term dialogic denotes that which is characterized by dialogue. Taking things one step further, this list-maker will note that the term dialogue is frequently used in film, writing, and media, but, unfortunately, it is rarely used intentionally as a design method. Before we proceed, this list maker will note that dialogue, as posited here, is distinct from narrative, or “storytelling.” ¶ Rather than digress into philosophical notions of the term dialogic, as noted above, its use here largely indicates dialog and also discourse. These I put forth as possible **new literacies** for 21st-century designers. To better understand this position, let’s look at a metaphorical example from a translation of Morin’s writing. In his “Three Principles” section, Morin states: “What I have said of order and disorder can be conceived in dialogic [emphasis added] terms. Order and disorder are two enemies: one abolishes the other, but at the same time, in certain cases, they collaborate and produce organization and complexity.”⁹² With Morin’s flowery statement in mind, notions of dialogic, as described by Morin, suggest that, in certain cases, it is possible for opposing forces to “collaborate.” If we then rein in this statement’s relationship to designing, those who have worked in architecture and design can attest to this dialogic quality. While tacit, the basis of truth of such a statement lies in the fact that design is nearly always developed through a series of dialogic and iterative steps. The problem is that these steps are usually hidden and sometimes ephemeral. ¶ Unlike some forms of art, there is rarely a design problem or solution without some sort of constraint. Thus, the designer must navigate and facilitate a set of dialogic steps and integrative concerns. This notion multiplies when multiple designers approach the same problem, often yielding vastly varied solutions—or, said more plainly, multiple viable paths. Then, of course, sorting through these options also requires dialogic assessments and critique. ¶ Alas, designers and architects have not been so good at communicating the value of such designerly-dialogic skills. How we demystify these skills and tacit understandings is not resolved here, but it is refreshing to see that in Design Theory to Go, Poggenpohl chose “tacit knowledge” as one of her 24 areas of focus. As Poggenpohl notes, “A basic distinction of interest to designers and design teachers is the relationship between explicit and tacit knowledge.”⁹³ To help readers understand these issues, Poggenpohl describes explicit knowledge as “codified,” meaning that it can be “pointed to.”⁹⁴ Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is “hidden” or ephemeral, and sometimes needs to be experienced or practiced. ¶ In this course, we will attempt to become familiar with some of the theories put forward by Poggenpohl and others while attempting to advance our dialogic and discourse⁹⁵ oriented skills as a practice. ¶ As nearly any seasoned designer, planner, or architect will attest, it is much easier to discuss something when there is something to react to or see. To parse this insight further, we will build upon the c-word section on concepts, in which we explored the value and meanings of sketching. Not matter where your practice lies within the domain of design, the next logical step might be to more formally explore such notions. The tried-and-true way to do this is to draw. We known that sketching helps us explore and communicate. Depending on your level of commitment, drawing takes the sketch one or even many steps further. As we will see, for many artists, architects, and designers, drawing is a way to express, record, and represent—but also a way to think and “see.”
   
   
5. Drawing: In 2006, Chris Coy (1980–2025) filmed a wonderfully conceived, minimalistic, single-take, five-minute film titled Milton Glaser Draws & Lectures.⁹⁶ Even those who have never taken a design history course are likely familiar with Milton Glaser’s work. Glaser (1929–2020) was an internationally known American graphic designer and illustrator, widely considered one of the most influential figures in the history of visual communication. The work of Glaser and his contemporaries fundamentally shaped and transformed the visual landscape of post-war America, blending fine art, commercial illustration, and pop culture into immediate, universally recognized icons. Glaser is best known for creating the iconic “I ❤ NY” logo. ¶ Coy’s film commences with the classic snap of a clapperboard. Once the clapperboard retreats from the composition, viewers encounter a macro-level top-down shot of what appears to be an artist’s or designer’s drawing table. Within seconds, a hand holding a pencil enters from the base of the frame, revealing an arm adorned with a blue pin-striped dress shirt sleeve, its classic white cuff clasped shut by a stately metal link. After a few seconds, we are greeted by Glaser’s voice, who, over the next five minutes, delivers an unscripted monologue on the many merits of drawing. ¶ Glaser, whose voice appropriately feels like New York, begins by casually stating what for this list-maker is the most profound of his message. Glaser states, “For me, drawing has always been the most fundamental way of engaging the world.”⁹⁷ ¶ As Glaser proceeds, the viewer watches him deftly render an expressive portrait of an unknown male figure. Glaser then states, “I am convinced that it is only through drawing that I actually look at things carefully and the act of drawing makes me conscious of what I am looking at.”⁹⁸ Alas, this list maker will here note that scores of artists, architects, and designers have long shared in Glaser’s fundamental understanding of drawing as a uniquely human ability and sensibility. The brilliant simplicity of Coy’s film lies in its self-exemplification. At some point during the film, Glaser reveals that he was preparing a book on the merits of drawing. Two years later, in 2008, Glaser published Drawing is Thinking, which features 210 of Glaser’s original drawings and illustrations. Some of these drawings emerged as commissioned works, while others seem more akin to the kind of visual interest most people capture with a point-and-shoot camera: casual depictions of scenes and memories from travels, vacations, and more. ¶ In Coy’s film, Glaser also contends that if he were not drawing, he “would not be seeing.”⁹⁹ Like Glaser and others, this list-maker contends that drawing remains an essential way to think and engage with the world—and as such it is one that should not be abandoned in one’s life, education, or practice. Even as advanced technologies provide us with tools that quickly produce visuals that appear more polished than what we can render more slowly “by hand”—drawing affords us a direct connection to the subject matter that allows us to engage with it more deeply. Beyond this, briefly consider what Glaser was rendering during the film: a portrait of Shakespeare. As Glaser notes in the film, in truth, nobody really knows what Shakespeare looked like as no actual portraits have survived. ¶ There are countless excellent books on drawing, seeing, and visual language—far too many to list or acknowledge here. Given that this d-word list is focused on designers and design, I might recommend a book that is less concerned with theory and more geared towards the subject at hand: actually drawing. Fortunately, just as I was compiling my course notes, I stumbled across Bradford J. Prestbo, FAIA’s recent (2024) book, From Mind to Paper: Enhance Design Thinking Through Drawing. The first thing this list maker did after obtaining a copy of Prestbo’s book was to purchase a fresh set of moderately priced pens. From Mind to Paper provides just enough instruction for anyone at any level to get started with drawing. For more seasoned designers, books such as Prestbo’s may offer a renewed excuse to draw. In a section titled “From Mind to Paper,” Pablo Savid-Buteler, LEED AP, an architect from Sasaki, writes, “As a designer, I believe sketching is a way of thinking about design that brings direct verification to the pursuit of multiple possibilities.”¹⁰⁰ As evidenced in this quote, much like Glaser, Savid-Butler seems to appreciate and understand the timeless relationship between drawing, thinking, and design. ¶ Earlier in this section, I briefly mentioned my one-time quest for the perfect pen. A rubric for this seemingly inconsequential choice might include factors such as the pen’s weight, cost, performance, color, size, and more. Any pen, no matter its quality or origin, has been designed. It may be well-designed or poorly designed, and there’s even a good chance it was designed by someone who does not even consider themselves a designer. My point here is that we all have these imaginary “rubrics” as we make, use, and acquire things. If we were to imagine the various “rubrics” we use to choose things more deeply, we very likely stumble upon some formulation of a somewhat odd factor. That odd factor, or at least one of them, serves as the basis for our very next topic: desire.
   
   
6. Desire: What do an ancient hand-axe, a vegetable-peeler, a trash can, and a rock concert have in common? The somewhat strange answer presented here is desire. In my 2025 motion graphics film, Towards a Dynamic Discipline of Design, viewers are initially presented with one of the oldest known human-made artifacts—a small, somewhat primitive stone tool commonly called a “hand axe.”¹⁰¹ The reason for showcasing this ancient artifact at the outset of a film exploring notions of 21st-century design was largely to illustrate a rather peculiar observation. As described in the film, thanks to recent work by archaeologists and anthropologists, we now know much more about these ancient objects—not only where they came from and how they were used, but also what their shapes and forms reveal about their users. The hand-axe was used for skinning, trimming, and woodworking. But beyond these core functions, these ancient stone tools seem to have been prized not only for their function but also for their aesthetics—what they looked like and maybe even how they felt. ¶ That peculiar property is exemplified by the big-tent d-word: desire. The story of the hand-axe tells us something fundamental about who we have long been as humans. Much like my pen example, we each develop and possess a rich mix of peculiar rubrics that inform how we shape, make, consider, evaluate, choose, and comprehend human-made artifacts. ¶ Let’s now leap forward to the present day and specifically to the scholarly realms of design management and innovation, where desirability is recognized as one of the three core pillars of design thinking, alongside feasibility (what is technically possible) and viability (what is financially sustainable).¹⁰² Of course, as we evaluate various artifacts in the present day, our notions of desire are oftentimes influenced by advertising, marketing, and other forms of communication—but this is not the subject at hand here. Instead, we will briefly bring to light this link between design and desire. To do so, let’s move on to my second example, a utilitarian object most of us keep in our kitchens: the hand-held fruit and vegetable peeler. ¶ For designers of my generation, the kitchen-peeler story that follows is well-known. It is safe to assume that many designers in this list-maker’s age group grew up using an all-metal vegetable peeler. This particular metal vegetable peeler I have in mind had notoriously sharp edges and was, oddly enough, quite hard to hold. The more you squeezed, the more it hurt, and even for young, able-bodied persons, peelers like this metal one were quite literally painful to use. As the story is told, in 1989, Sam Farber,¹⁰³ a retired housewares executive, noticed that his wife, Betsey, who was suffering from arthritis, was struggling to peel apples. Betsey was likely using a version of the old-school metal peeler this list-maker just described. Farber set out to solve Betsey’s peeler pain problem. To do so, Farner partnered with the industrial design firm Smart Design.¹⁰⁴ The team at Smart Design developed a vegetable peeler that, compared to the metal one, was much more comfortable and easy to use—not only for those with arthritis, but for everyone. The team at Smart Design seems to have embraced designerly concepts such as affordance,¹⁰⁵ user-centered design,¹⁰⁶ ergonomics,¹⁰⁷ universal design,¹⁰⁸ accessibility,¹⁰⁹ materials science,¹¹⁰ and more. The resulting product, which came to be known in shorthand as the “OXO Peeler,” featured a thick, soft, non-slip rubber handle that absorbed pressure. To add extra comfort and grip, the designers added rows of thin, pliable “fins” to the grip. This peeler performed well and looked great too—by that, this list-maker means that the industrial designers at Smart Design made the object feel friendly to use, but they also made it look friendly. This latter concern is achieved by thoughtfully considering the peeler’s visual and material vocabulary. The OXO peeler was a massive leap forward in kitchen tool design and to this day remains a consumer success. In 1994, a few years after its introduction, the peeler was even inducted into the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York.¹¹¹ Much like the hand-axe, the OXO peeler is a simple tool designed for a necessary task, but its combination of aesthetics, performance, and comfort also makes it a beautiful object of desire—because people love(d) it. ¶ My second example is seemingly less desirable than the kitchen peeler example: an indoor trash can. Of all things you might ask—how could a stinky old trash can become an object of desire? Around the same time the OXO peeler was developed, a rather odd-looking trash can began appearing in stores. Instead of a classic rectangular trash can, this one took on a flowing, tulip-like shape. Much like the OXO peeler, the trash can was also designed for ease of use. For instance, its handles are easy to locate and easy to grasp, making it intuitive to pick up. The handles were neatly integrated into the singular form of the trash can’s design (rather than tacked on as an afterthought). The tulip-like trash can was made of injection-molded polypropylene, which is extremely lightweight, affordable, durable, and recyclable. The trash can was given the nickname “Garbo,” and it was sold in a variety of uplifting colors. Much like the OXO peeler, it somehow seemed classic even though it was brand new. The “Garbo” trash can was designed by Karim Rashid,¹¹² and it was first released in 1996. Like the OXO peeler, the Garbo, or the “Garbino,” as the smaller version was called, was also added to the Museum of Modern Art’s permanent collection.¹¹³ ¶ But here we must pause, reflect, and ask the obvious question: do we really need a stylish tulip-shaped garbage can? Twenty years after Garbo’s release, Misha Volf, writing for Metropolis, reflected critically upon the object and its place in the world. The last two sentences of her review seem to encapsulate a long line of critical voices of consumerism and design.¹¹⁴ Volf ultimately states, “Rashid’s can leaves us to parse trash and meaning. The Garbo, after all, is not a thing. It’s an idea.”¹¹⁵ ¶ Volf’s final statement helps us recognize design’s strange significance and breadth—from the symbolic to the functional to the social—but, perhaps most remarkably in this list-maker’s view, is the nebulous “inbetweenness” of design. As a noun and a verb—a synthesis of thinking and doing design seems endlessly fascinating but also consequential. ¶ As we entered the 21st century and further into the information age,¹¹⁶ the trajectory of “design and desire” seems to have garnered even greater significance. Along these lines, in 2010, Chris Anderson¹¹⁷ emphasized the role of desire in a Wired article on the subject of “Crowd Accelerated Innovation.” The article (which now feels very 2010) argued that the explosion of online video would drive a worldwide learning revolution as profound as the invention of the printing press. With this bold premise aside, this list maker recounts the three memorable components that Anderson used to cogently organize his thesis. According to Anderson, the three key ingredients for this open form of innovation are [or would be] 1) a crowd, 2) light, and 3) desire.¹¹⁸ As is reflected in Anderson’s work with the TED conference,¹¹⁹ notions of “radical openness” (note the use of Wikipedia in this literature review) have helped ideas move and spread faster and more efficiently than in the past. The sheer amount of ideas, content, and individually designed texts, media and products now available, along with how we parse and value them, has often been described as “the long tail.”¹²⁰ By referencing Anderson’s article from Wired in this section, this list maker is prompting design-minded students in this course to further posit past, present, and future intersections of design and desire. What ethical dimensions arise, how economic models have responded, and more. ¶ Note something essential: the word desire itself does not indicate or suggest what is desired. In some design work, interviews with users and community members might reveal that stakeholders, in fact, desire less of something and nothing new. Along these lines, in his Wired article on desire, Anderson ultimately states the obvious: “We’re social animals.”¹²¹ This social aspect of design is one that designerly doers cannot and should not ignore—from places to products to environments—much like concerts, people come for the music, but they show up for the experience. Positive social responses to experiences and design frequently conjure up notions of delight. It is not a surprise then to see terms such as desire, delight, discovery, and other d-words used frequently by designers, architects, and planners alike. ¶ Alas, scholarly discourses around design and desire seem to be expanding. Such notions are explored in Harold G. Nelson and Erik Stolterman’s 2012 book The Design Way, and in particular, a chapter titled “Desiderata.” In their book, Nelson and Stolterman “use the concept of desiderata (i.e., desires) as an inclusive whole.”¹²² The inclusive whole in this case denotes three design-oriented concerns: aesthetics, ethics, and reason. The authors also note that “the aggregated effect of these three approaches transcends their summation, forming an emergent quality….”¹²³ The design of artifacts affects our mood, behavior, performance, motivation and more. It is no surprise to see design entering spheres such as education—not, in this case, as the study of design as a subject, but, conversely, as a way to posit the design of instruction and learning. Along these lines, we can sense when we are using tools, products, and spaces that help us learn and advance. Again, we can easily see how such design-oriented ideas are connected to the c-word care. Likely in place of words such as care or desire, Nelson and Stolterman use the term “splendor.”¹²⁴ In somewhat poetic terms, the authors state, “sometimes a design becomes the conveyor of the soul.”¹²⁵ ¶ Alas, while desire serves as a timeless constant in design, over the course of this list maker’s design and teaching career, the materials, methods, tools, and practices of our disciplines and domain seem to do the opposite. They seem to be in an ever-increasing state of change, evolution and flux. While many factors have contributed to the (sometimes frustrating) dynamism of design, one more recent factor in particular has risen to this list-maker’s short list. Like design, we are seemingly surrounded by it, even though few seem to fully comprehend its inner workings and significance. That d-word is data.
   
   
7. Data: Within the complexity section of An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course, this list-maker briefly cites John Maeda’s landmark 2006 book, The Laws of Simplicity. More than ten years after publishing his 100-page book on simplicity, Maeda released another timely and highly accessible book—this one titled How to Speak Machine (2019). Somewhat akin to how Maeda’s book on simplicity provided non-designers with a window into the world of aesthetics, How to Speak Machine served, and continues to serve, as a guide for non-programmers to understand computation. For those like this list-maker, who have no formal training in computer science, the book provides an understanding of grammar, if you will, around logic and “laws” of computation, data, and more. As Maeda reflects in his Introduction, “So I came to wonder if I could find a way for more nontechie people to start building a basic understanding of computation. And then, with that conceptual grounding, to show how computation is transforming the design of products and services.”¹²⁶ As Maeda’s notes, computation has and will continue to transform many products and services. ¶ For designers like this list-maker, in the 1990’s, designing for or with data seemed fringe. Terms such as interactive design, interaction design,¹²⁷ and user-experience design¹²⁸ were on the horizon but still seemed distant. In the mid-90s, when one of my professors told us that compact disks, digital video disks, and disks in general would “disappear” within a few years, we students responded skeptically. ¶ A wise mentor of this list maker once advised him to seek out the teachers of the teachers. With this advice in hand, we can trace some if not much of John Maeda’s thinking, writing, and practice to the designer and educator Muriel Cooper¹²⁹ (1925–1994). Cooper was one of Maeda’s most influential mentors at MIT.¹³⁰ Cooper exemplifies many, if not most, of the words chosen for these lists: curiosity, discovery, and yes, even data. Even though Cooper was trained and practiced as a graphic designer, with curiosity, she and her students embarked on a voyage at the intersection of data and design ¶ While some feared the intersection of technology and design, Cooper seems to have leaned right into it—somehow knowing or sensing that the inputs and outputs of design were about to shift. Cooper later founded MIT’s Visible Language Workshop and then became co-founder of the MIT Media Lab.¹³¹ ¶ Cooper seemed to keep a low profile and rarely appeared in photos—and for far too long, her work, teaching, and influence were neglected in the canon of design history. Fortunately, in 2017, David Reinfurt and Robert Wiesenberger assembled a beautifully designed, large-format, lavishly illustrated volume on Cooper and her work. ¶ In the Introduction to Murial Cooper, the authors share that, “in the MIT Media Lab, she developed new software and interfaces and mentored a generation of designers.”¹³² As noted earlier, one of those mentees was Maeda, whose work equally exemplifies many of the words chosen for these lists. But alas, readers might point out that at MIT, Maeda and Cooper were surrounded and influenced by technology-focused students and colleagues. Why should ordinary designerly thinkers and doers be concerned with such nerdy notions of data? And for that matter, what is data exactly? ¶ Just briefly, let’s briefly explore the aforementioned questions and concerns. In 2001, Lev Manovich¹³³ published The Language of New Media—a text well known to those who have taken a college-level film or media studies course. Manovich’s book was and still is widely considered one of the first comprehensive texts on “new media.”¹³⁴ Although Manovich’s text was focused on media and not design per se, it still serves as a convenient data-oriented reference point. Manovich’s explorations at the intersections of cinema and computers likewise provide valuable, timely, and graspable considerations for designers. For instance, in response to our earlier question around data, we can look to a section of Manovich’s book titled “The Database.”¹³⁵ Indeed, at the start of this section, Manovich states, “Before proceeding, I need to comment on my use of the word database. In computer science, database is defined as a structured collection of data. The data stored in a database is organized for fast search and retrieval by a computer, and therefore, it is anything but a simple collection of items.”¹³⁶ ¶ Since Manovich first published his text in 2001, notions of databases and data have become ever more influential, pervasive, interconnected, and consequential—to state the obvious, data seems to be everywhere. This webpage, for instance, is stored as data—its text and images are saved remotely on a giant hard drive connected to the internet. Somewhat ironically, these giant warehouse-sized drives are called servers. In summary, nearly anything saved in digital form can be considered data. ¶ Why does any of this matter for those in the designerly domain? Following Manovich’s earlier-cited definition of data, he states, “But it is also appropriate that we would want to develop a poetics, aesthetics, and ethics of this database.”¹³⁷ Much like Manovich understood the vast implications of data and cinema, we can and should likewise view data as “material” in and for design. And much like a chef chooses ingredients, when it comes to design, material makes the meal. ¶ Let’s briefly circle back to the definition of design provided by Jones at the outset of this d-word list. As readers recall, Jones suggested that “the effect of designing is to initiate change in man-made things.”¹³⁸ Unlike some more unfavorable definitions, Jones’ is neutral and non-prescriptive in regard to the outcome of the act of designing. Now let’s go one step further, in the process of designing, data (as a selected material) can very much shape, influence, or inform a design. While these informed or inspired material choices have traditionally been the designer’s—things are getting a bit more complex. ¶ In design circles, one of the first, or at least most well-known, stories that helps frame this complexity at the intersection of data and design occurred in 2009. For designers in industry and academia alike, h the story and dilemma it presented are now commonly referred to as 41 Shades of Blue. The 41 Shades of Blue debate first entered the world of design discourse when Google executive Marissa Meyer led an in-house project that tested the impact of using various colored links in ads.¹³⁹ In short, instead of letting the designers pick the color, Google decided to run a test and let the data decide. The obvious question then arises—why would they not just trust the design experts? At the time, Google claimed that such a small decision, such as the shade of blue used on a button, amounted to an extra $200m a year in ad revenue.¹⁴⁰ Shortly after the experiment, Doug Bowman, Google’s top designer at the time, cited 41 Shades of Blue as one reason for his departure.¹⁴¹ ¶ One can easily see the dilemma that unfolds, not only for designers such as Bowman but for all of us—any profession, domain or discipline where judgment or taste are, or at least have been, valued just as much as the data. At the intersection of data and design, one takeaway for list-readers is to posit the benefits, drawbacks, and differences among that which is 1) data-driven, that which is 2) data-informed, and that which is 3) data-agnostic. There’s also a fourth iteration of these data-oriented approaches, one that first surfaced in various design circles in the mid-2010s: that which is data-inspired design¹⁴² (sometimes referred to as data-enhanced). This last flavor of design and data often uses data as a creative prompt. ¶ Lastly, list-readers might now think back to the 41 Shades of Blue dilemma and posit it from a long-term perspective: in some contexts, being strictly “data-driven” may kill the designer’s ability to innovate, differentiate, and critically evaluate. On its own, data is not relational, ethical, or creative. While some systems can provide access to or even rapidly synthesize data, such data-driven synthesis can also lead to homogenization. These are just a few reasons why those in the designerly domain should consider adding data to their growing lists of competencies, literacies, and fluencies.
   
   
8. Doing: One of the wonderful characteristics of designing is that, by its very nature, design tends to be action-oriented. That action could be instigated by a project, a problem, a passion, or even a peculiar prompt from a Professor. Again, using Jones’ definition of design as a touchstone, doing seems to be central to design—we might recall Jones’ suggestion that design, in part, initiates change. There is thus a transformational quality to design and to designing. But why should we briefly explore a concept as seemingly basic as doing? To briefly explore this question, let’s look to a book from 1999 that is aptly titled The Knowing-Doing Gap. ¶ The Knowing-Doing Gap was written by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton—both Professors at Stanford. While the book was written primarily for readers interested in leadership and business, some aspects seem more crucial than ever to a general reader—especially designers. This list maker’s assertion seems to be well supported by the last chapter in Pfeffer and Sutton’s book chapter titled “Turning Knowledge into Action.” At the outset of this chapter, the authors state the obvious: “Knowledge and information are obviously [emphasis added] crucial to performance.”¹⁴³ The next statement is more surprising, especially given that this book is now nearly 30 years old and the internet was still in its infancy. Pfeffer and Sutton state, “But we now live in a world where knowledge transfer and information exchange are tremendously efficient….”¹⁴⁴ ¶ With this last statement in mind, this list maker might assume that the authors had no sense of just how quickly and efficiently data and information now travel. In part, this likely informed the authors to assert that “there are fewer and smaller differences in what firms know than in their ability to act on that knowledge.”¹⁴⁵ Finally, as the authors attempt to emphasize this all-too-common gap between knowing and doing, they point to a term coined by Harlow Cohen, which Cohen memorably called the performance paradox.¹⁴⁶ ¶ Cohen makes clear what many list-readers have likewise observed: while we often know “what to do” we may “actually ignore or act in contradiction.”¹⁴⁷ Fascinatingly, just as this list maker referenced Theodore Levitt’s landmark paper, “Creativity Alone is Not Enough,” in the c-word section on concepts, Pfeffer and Sutton similarly suggest that knowledge is not enough. ¶ In light of or even in spite of these knowing-doing challenges, design seems to do surprisingly well. We are literally surrounded by the evidence of this: otherwise, buildings would not be built, products would not be launched, communication would get stuck in endless editing, and so on. Architects, designers, and other designerly doers somehow seem to get things done and move things forward when others seem to get stuck. There are two points this list maker wishes to make regarding this reality. The first is more obvious: architects and designers are trained to make. In fact, our pedagogies, vocabularies, modes of analysis, and more all center upon doing—visualizing and initiating change and, in many cases, making that change reality. ¶ The second point is less obvious, but it is still worthy of noting here. The act of making things can likewise serve as a catalyst for change (hopefully positive) for the recipient of that which is made. This list-maker has witnessed this phenomenon countless times firsthand. A new hospital, for instance, might create the right atmosphere or conditions for positive improvement or change in patient care. Sometimes that same new hospital also improves employee satisfaction. Along these lines, designerly doers might help launch a refreshed brand that then attracts top talent to the organization, thereby strengthening the business, institution, or organization itself. ¶ Let’s now circle back to Pfeffer and Sutton’s book. The problem the authors described is all too common: excessive talk, fear of failure, internal infighting, lack of will, lack of funding, planning that results in more planning to a point of no return. But then, along comes design, and we show what’s possible—then, using an informed approach, we do it. When things get stuck, when the silos are siloed, and when there’s plenty of data but no one seems to act on it—design offers an alternative or alterplinary¹⁴⁸ option. It’s no surprise that “The Knowing Doing Gap” appears¹⁴⁹ as one of the 200 entries in the third edition of Universal Principles of Design. Designers are prolific doers—we know how to make, develop, iterate, curate, and facilitate—and we do so efficiently and repeatedly. This is both how and why those who are designerly tend to get things done.
   
   
9. Distraction: In 1943, the poet, essayist, and playwright T. S. Eliot¹⁵⁰ (1888–1965) compiled four poems that were originally written and published separately over several years, grouping them into a collected volume titled Four Quartets.¹⁵¹ The first of the four poems in this volume is titled Burnt Norton. The title of this poem refers to a historic manor house located in Gloucestershire, England. The property, originally called Norton House, it earned the name “Burnt Norton”¹⁵² after the estate’s owner, Sir William Keyt, tragically set fire to the mansion in 1741. The house was later rebuilt and renamed to reflect its fiery history. ¶ For designers, this bit of poetic trivia may at first seem irrelevant or inconsequential—but as this list maker seeks to expose students to various design-oriented discourses, there’s a peculiar line from Eliot’s poem Burnt Norton (originally published in 1936)¹⁵³ that may help readers frame and reflect upon notions of distraction. ¶ About halfway through the poem, in the third section, at line 101, we encounter the following line: “Distracted from distraction by distraction.”¹⁵⁴ Eliot’s poetic line on distraction is widely considered one of the most prescient, memorable, and frequently quoted in modern poetry. Scholars and cultural critics have analyzed it from several key exegetical perspectives. ¶ With Eliot’s triple reflective poetic line in mind, I invite readers to join me in reflecting upon notions of distraction in the present day—the positives, the negatives, and more. To do so, first, this list-maker will invite readers to place distraction in dialogic tension with broad notions of contemplation. Then, I invite readers to posit distraction as an applied principle, in this case for designing and design—with two obvious flavors: positive distraction and negative distraction.¹⁵⁵ Lastly, we will give a brief nod to focus and attention in relation to learning. ¶ During the classical period in ancient Greece, Aristotle used the terms bios praktikos (βίος πρακτικός) and bios theoretikos (βίος θεωρητικός) to describe a life (bios) of practical action (praktikos) and contemplation (theoretikos). Beyond this, Aristotle seemed to believe that attention is not passive; instead, he viewed it as a moral and intellectual muscle or hexis (ἕξις) to be actively exercised and habituated. Hexis¹⁵⁶ comes from the Greek verb echein (ἔχειν), which can mean “to have” or “to hold.” Thus, notions of hexis may represent active-sustained presence and attention. Said another way, hexis, or attention, can be placed in opposition or tension with distraction. So why does any of this matter for designerly doers? One answer lies in the fact that, as a profession, design is very much associated with practical action (praktikos). But, let’s take this one step further. A critical reader might then ask how designers, as convenors of practical action, subjectively or objectively, decide what is “practical.” This is an excellent point, which is addressed somewhat below [largely through references to evidence-based design and tacit knowledge]. Going even further, designers, depending on the design, simultaneously explore and, in many cases, incorporate the practical and the impractical (aesthetics, etc). To this latter point, as they say, the plot thickens. ¶ At this intersection of the practical and impractical, we once again arrive at the contemplative. Aristotle considered contemplation, or the contemplative life, the highest form of human existence. While Aristotle saw practical action as necessary, he viewed contemplation (theoria) as the ultimate space or place where humans reflect on eternal truths. Thus, as we fast-forward to the present, for designerly doers, contemplation represents the point in the design process where we “step back” from doing so that we can think, reflect, observe, and understand. ¶ Now let’s bring some of these lofty philosophical ideas back down to earth. Here, students might argue (rightly so) that there is likely no field for “contemplation” on a timesheet. This list maker can attest that for most corporate jobs this is true. But what you can assign time to, [and with approval bill clients for] is design research—which leads us to our next few points. ¶ Let’s shift gears and posit distraction itself as an applied principle for designing and design. First, let’s briefly consider opportunities for positive distraction by design. In 1984, Roger Ulrich (a professor of architecture) first published his landmark paper “View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.”¹⁵⁷ For the rest of this section, this list maker will casually refer to this paper as “View Through a Window.” Ulrich’s 1984 study found that surgical patients with a view of nature suffered fewer complications, used less pain medication, and were discharged sooner than those who looked out on a brick wall. Today, many design scholars view Ulrich’s paper as seminal because it helped popularize principles of evidence-based design (EBD).¹⁵⁸ This list maker will frame this another way—after “View Through a Window,” a hospital window was not just a window, something that’s nice to have—but something that architects and designers could argue is essential to the design of spaces for efficient healing and care. ¶ “View Through a Window” thus seemed to unlock a world of questions at the intersection of design and distraction. For instance: can a plant placed in a classroom affect the result of an exam? In this example, the impact on test scores is minimal or non-significant, but meta-analyses¹⁵⁹ show that indoor plants contribute to relaxed physiological functions, including lower diastolic blood pressure and reduced anxiety. ¶ While there are countless examples this list maker could point to, over 15 years after “View Through a Window” was published, Jiang Shan (2020) published “Positive Distractions and Play in the Public Spaces of Pediatric Healthcare Environments: A Literature Review”¹⁶⁰ in HERD (Health Environments Research & Design Journal). This systematic, four-phased literature review categorized the use of positive distraction strategies in pediatric environments into six themes: 1) art and environmental aesthetics, (2) spatial arrangement and atrium, (3) considerations of socialization patterns, (4) play and interactive technologies, (5) sound and lighting interventions, and (6) access to nature. The research indicated that positive distractions in the pediatric healthcare environment provide a series of health benefits for patients.¹⁶¹ ¶ Let’s now shift gears and briefly posit some negative or questionable uses of distraction in design. In the world of user-experience design, a handful of these “distraction by distraction” deceptive practices have been given ominous labels. These include “dark patterns”¹⁶² and a form of infinite scrolling¹⁶³ termed “doomscrolling.”¹⁶⁴ Even the Pope seems wary of technologically driven distraction. In his 2026 encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo XIV states, “Such power should be constantly guided by the pursuit of truth and respect for human dignity, so that the culture fostered on the internet does not become an instrument of excessive distraction.”¹⁶⁵ The point here is that these potentially distracting practices are designed just as much as the positively distracting window in the patient room is designed. ¶ Lastly, at the intersection of design, distraction, and education, this list maker will briefly mention James M. Lang’s 2020 book, Distracted: Why Students Can’t Focus and What You Can Do About It. Firstly, despite the title of this book, this list maker does not contend that all students are distracted. Rather, we might reference Lang’s scholarship to reflect upon and acknowledge that individual qualities of attention help shape who we are, how we work, how we learn, and how we think. As one ponders Lang’s introduction titled “From Distraction to Attention,”¹⁶⁶ one might assume that the author is attempting to help educators reclaim responsibility for attention. Indeed, within this section, Lang notes that educators should be “Stewards of Attention.”¹⁶⁷ This list maker cites Lang here to make an argument, or case, much like educators, designers are also (or can be) stewards of attention. Along these lines, for educators, Lang articulates a series of attention-oriented principles, one of which holds that “attention remains achievable.”¹⁶⁸ While attention may or may not be achievable, the “hidden hand” of design is a powerful factor and has an increasingly critical role to play. ¶ As we have explored in this section, architects, designers, educators, and other designerly doers have long explored, acknowledged, and grappled with various understandings of distraction and attention in their work. With this in mind, take a moment to think of a space that, for you, might embody a sense of awe. It is likely that the magic “hand” of design, distraction, attentiveness, and contemplation is at work.
   
   
10. Dignity: In May of 2026, Brian LeDuc gave a design-oriented TEDx talk at the Price Center Theater at the University of California, San Diego. LeDuc is a design strategist working at the intersection of education, workforce, and innovation. LeDuc’s timely talk was titled “Using design to bring back our humanity in a world full of code.”¹⁶⁹ LeDuc begins his talk with a reminder and assertion: “Everything around you was designed, either on purpose or by accident.”¹⁷⁰ In this list maker’s observation, for designerly presenters akin to LeDuc, this type of “design is everywhere” reminder is fairly common. It is meant to prompt conversations about, through, and around design—its value, ubiquity, and, at times, somewhat opaque power. But then LeDuc’s talk takes a dialogic turn away from these more common, sometimes preachy “power of design” discourses. As LeDuc bluntly states, “When we have an experience that sucks or doesn’t make sense, it’s the result of bad design.”¹⁷¹ Then, a couple of minutes into his talk, LeDuc suggests that “good designers bring dignity [emphasis mine] to the people they’re learning from and build with [emphasis mine] them.”¹⁷² Going one step further, LeDuc says, “As designers, the goal of a design and who it serves matter a lot.”¹⁷³ ¶ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 seemed to elevate the term dignity akin to how it is posited here. Article 1 stipulates that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”¹⁷⁴ But what does this have to do with design—and why would the aforementioned design strategist use the term dignity in a talk seeking to elevate the contemporary importance of design? While this short passage cannot adequately answer these questions in detail, it can begin to orient readers towards designers, scholars, texts, and research thoughtfully exploring the intersections of design and dignity. ¶ An understanding of this dignity-design intersection might be best served by mentioning Victor Papanek¹⁷⁵ (1923–1998) and his landmark book Design for the Real World. First published in 1971, Papanek’s book initially landed with a whimper; but over the year it has steadily gained traction among legions of designers into the present day. Papanek’s teaching, writing, and advocacy were deeply rooted in honoring the worth, agency, and fundamental needs of human beings and our planet. In particular, Papanek attempted to elevate the voices of those who are marginalized, overlooked, or commonly exploited. Notably, at the start of the second chapter of Design for the Real World, Papanek stated, “The ultimate job of design is to transform man’s environment and tools and, by extension, man himself.”¹⁷⁶ As an aside, this list maker was first introduced to Papanek’s work by his undergraduate design history professor, Al Gowan, a close colleague of Papanek.¹⁷⁷ While the environmental and ecological aspects of Papanek’s work have garnered sustained attention, points explicitly related to dignity have drawn less interest. A noteworthy exception is William L. Lebovich’s Design for Dignity.¹⁷⁸ Published in 1993, Lebovich’s guidebook assembled a timely and heavily illustrated guide to architectural design for accessibility. It is likely without coincidence that Lebovich’s book fell on the heels of the 1990 passage of The Americans with Disabilities Act.¹⁷⁹ ¶ While Papanek himself did not necessarily situate this work under the big tent of dignity—this list maker will do so ex post facto. Following in the footsteps of Papanek, a whole host of designers and design scholars have directly and indirectly built upon his work in vast areas related to (but not limited to) accessibility, access, sustainability, affordance, and more. For conciseness, two contemporary figures exploring the intersections of dignity and design are listed below. These figures, and those like them, seem to exemplify what Paola Antonelli stated in her recent Forward to Jain et al.’s Designing Questions. As Antonelli states, “Without clear, just, and sustainable goals, no method or material can save us. With the right goals—acknowledging entanglement with nature, responsibility to others, and the pursuit of dignity, for example—methods and materials will follow.”¹⁸⁰ In support of the authors’ thesis, Antonelli then suggests that “without the right questions” such goals might remain unachievable.¹⁸¹ ¶ In 2025, this list maker was fortunate to meet fellow design educator Sara Hendren when she gave an invited guest lecture at his university. Hendren’s talk and her 2020 book What Can a Body Do? seem to explicitly exemplify notions of dignity in design. In the introduction to What Can a Body Do? Hendren states, “Every day every body is at odds with the built environment.”¹⁸² Hendren then provides a host of design-oriented examples from stairs to sidewalks to subway platforms. Later, Hendren questions the idea of what “normal” is—considering that we are all in one way or another so very different. As Hendren later states: “The idea of normalcy—a normal, average body or mind—is so ubiquitous and mundane that it’s settled into sleep in much of our collective cultural imagination.”¹⁸³ Then, through a series of contextual case studies, Hendren helps readers understand, imagine, and reimagine a future where design might better serve a wider range of needs and desires. Readers not only get a sense of what these design interventions enable, but also how they provide dignity to those whom designers serve. ¶ A second example that alludes to a connection between design and dignity is John Cary’s 2017 book Design for Good.¹⁸⁴ Like Papanek, Cary seems to push back against design’s all-too-often association with style and luxury, showcasing projects that link the intentionality of our spaces to the quality of our lives. In the Introduction (once again in the lineage of Papanek), Cary states, “those who need design most—regular people—aren’t even sure how to describe what it is they desire in their environments, products, and services.”¹⁸⁵ This list maker might suggest that what Cary describes is not unlike, or even disconnected from, what this list maker earlier posited as the “design-dependency dearth-discourse dilemma.” Notably, the foreword to Design for Good was written by Melinda Gates. In the foreword, Gates states, “great design is not a finite resource; it is a choice we can all make by listening more, empathizing more, and demanding more for humanity.”¹⁸⁶
    
    
11. Delta (knowledge): How do we begin to describe, define, and validate the tacit knowledge often associated with or employed in designerly doing? In the d-word section on doing, we explored the “gaps” that occasionally occur between knowing and doing. In this section, we will extend that discourse to parse how certain types of “doing” may underpin certain forms of human knowledge and knowing. While such doing-oriented questions have long been approached from various angles, those specific to design seemed to enjoy a noteworthy thread of exploration in the late 1980s and into the early 2000s. To the best of my knowledge, in 1989, Wim Gilles¹⁸⁷ (1923–2003) and Gilles Paquet¹⁸⁸ (1936–2019) proposed the concept of Delta knowledge, which they viewed as a fourth category of knowledge meant to encapsulate modes of methods doing.¹⁸⁹ Years later (in 2001), Wim Gilles co-authored another paper with design educator Jacques Giard¹⁹⁰ that once again attempted to advance notions of Delta knowledge. Their paper, “Delta Knowledge: Place and Significance in Industrial Design Education,” sought specifically to address “fundamental issues associated with the question of knowledge in industrial design.”¹⁹¹ In a section titled “Classes of Knowledge,” Gilles and Giard state the following:
     
    Knowledge has long been a part of the intellectual evolution and history of society. So, too, has the study of the development of knowledge and its classification. A simple classification of academic disciplines, as it is widely used in Europe, recognizes three types of disciplines. They are Alpha, Beta and Gamma. The Alpha disciplines, commonly referred to as the humanities, are the oldest of the three; Beta disciplines, those of the exact sciences, developed later. The recognition of Gamma disciplines only occurred in the last century after the development of the social sciences. Each of the three types of discipline uses its own characteristic language. Alpha disciplines use the language of words, Beta disciplines use that of numbers, and Gamma disciplines use a combination of word language and numbers, often that of statistics and analyses.¹⁹²
     
    The authors then note that by the end of the 20th century, some scholars felt that doing-oriented disciplines did not fit neatly into these categories—including design.¹⁹³ This formulation and use of alpha, beta, and gamma to classify intellectual and academic disciplines was first described in 1980 by Fritz Machlup¹⁹⁴ (1902–1983) in his multi-volume work Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution, and Economic Significance.¹⁹⁵ Readers might assume that such sustained scholarly arguments for Delta knowledge over many years would, alongside design’s growing influence, similarly gain broader understanding and recognition, but, with a few exceptions, this does not seem to be the case. Giard and Giles did garner at least some traction with their 2001 paper, which delineated “new and adjusted operational devices and pedagogical vehicles commensurate with the nature of Delta knowledge.”¹⁹⁶ The authors offered five operational devices, including studio design projects, case studies, and the learner’s report. These “operational devices” connect to several of the themes explored in this list-maker’s Incomplete List of P-Words for Project-Based Pursuits, especially the section on process. ¶ Some might fear that Giard and Giles’s demand for case studies and reports placed an undue, and in many cases uncompensated, burden on the designer or design team. Going further, some might fear that learning reports and case studies would, over time, potentially have the effect of rationalizing or post-rationalizing the subjective. While these rebuttals are not without substance, outside of that which is captured through evidence-based design methods, how would those outside of a design project understand the intent of a designer, design, or design team? Here we admittedly enter a “grey zone”—as design ideas may arrive at the most inopportune time and in strange, unexpected ways. It is well known that some ideas arrive in indirect and sometimes even accidental ways. How does one document such an obscure process? ¶ While these rebuttals are noted, a response might be that keeping a record of one’s designerly process cannot hurt, and one might argue that such efforts likely do not invalidate the designer’s capacity for the tacit, intuitive, expressive, or improvisational. Moreover, they suggest that such acts might be documented and reflected upon. Doing so requires designerly documentation.
    
    
12. Documentation: In July of 2026, on a college campus in Ohio, this list-maker was scheduled to initially present his word lists at an academic design conference. As this list-maker made his way to the lecture-style room where the talks in his session were scheduled to take place, he eventually reached the podium to connect his laptop, where he noticed a handmade, poster-sized sign on the wall. Above this sign, in large, sparkle-birthday-party-style text, was a poster title of sorts with text that read “Health Information Management.” Below this larger text sat a handmade poster (Fig. 2) that read, “Coding Rule 1: If it is not documented, it did not happen.” ¶ Curious to learn what this meant, this list maker did some quick research and sent the image to a friend who works in healthcare. As it turns out, in the context of Health Information Management (HIM), “coding” and documentation are tightly interconnected concepts—and in this list maker’s view, they are ones that designers might be able to learn something from. In healthcare, documentation may include the original narrative or record written or dictated by doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers. Such documentation can include patient histories, physical exams, progress notes, surgical reports, discharge summaries, and more. Then, as a complement to this documentation, coding might be described as a process in which a trained HIM professional (or “medical coder”) reads this clinical documentation and translates it into standardized alphanumeric codes. These “codes” are used for reimbursement, data tracking, analytics, patient records, and more. The point in noting this healthcare-related poster here is for designers to similarly ponder the relationship among action, documentation, and “coding”—defined here as a communicable or systematized version of that documentation. ¶ In his Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course, this list-maker explored notions of the portfolio and how it differs from and complements other knowledge-skill-and-experience conveyance tools and approaches (such as the Curriculum Vitae). Further in this section, the author cited key scholarly figures such as Sir Christopher Frayling, Dan Serig, and others who, in the 20th century and beyond, sought to articulate and advance art- and design-based inquiry as research and scholarship. These figures helped substantiate creative practice, creative research, and creative pedagogies and posited how such knowledge might be appropriately coded and communicated. ¶ In this section on documentation, we will interweave these portfolio-oriented ideas with more epistemological-operational devices like the ones described by Giard and Giles in the previous section on Delta knowledge. This will surely spark debate in the classroom and beyond. For instance, one might ask what level(s) of documentation, if any, are appropriate for designers and design? Is there a point at which documentation becomes a hindrance to the creative-design process? More speculatively, we might ponder a future (with the coding example from healthcare in mind) in which some design professionals might be relationally akin to primary care physicians [aka primary care architects and designers]? ¶ To parse these ideas a bit further, following the aforementioned design conference, I asked a healthcare professional (who is also trained in design) about the curious handmade sign that I encountered on the college campus in Ohio. In response, this figure stated, “In healthcare… generally, it’s not enough to provide exceptional care, […] everything you do must be reflected in your documentation, because it will be the only lasting record of what happened.” ¶ Before we advance this documentation conversation further, let’s briefly review some previous ideas from An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course. At one point, as part of the creative process, this list maker asked readers to imagine “a series of footnotes within footnotes.”¹⁹⁷ This is based on the idea that as one develops creative, design-project-oriented ideas, those ideas can often be contextually mapped and situated within research and precedents. Later, this list oftentimes advises students to start a creative or design project by collecting such nested “footnotes” (ideas, precedents, images, research, literature, etc.)—all under the broad categorization of contextual research. ¶ Now for some good news. This collection of contextual footnotes may count or contribute not only towards the discovery phase or contextual research, but when preserved (as a record of one’s thinking, reference points, process, and more) much of that process can then be used in one’s documentation: portfolios, learning records, case studies, project descriptions, and more. ¶ Beyond footnotes, as designerly professionals, when it comes to documentation, one can [and should] be thinking in terms of “figures.” Just as we broadly posited footnotes earlier, we can now posit this notion and use of a “figure.” A figure (or “future figure”) is another way for designers to think about capturing contextual documentation as part of the design process. ¶ Let us now reflect on the start of this section. This listed maker essentially employs a figure, in this case a photographic reference from outside the world of design, to frame a conversation around documentation in design. Thus, even a photo on a wall, if relevant, can potentially become a figure. Then the documentation is essentially “encoded” in this essay as a figure (Fig. 2). Making the photo from the design conference venue into a figure gives it a label that can be referenced, debated, pondered, and discussed further in literature, promotional material, design research, and more. An incomplete list of what can constitute a figure in design documentation might include, but is not limited to: photos, scans, sketches, models, prototypes, iterations; videos, interviews; audio recordings; charts, infographics, diagrams, data; and so on. ¶ Unlike pure science or even pure art, the alterplinary¹⁹⁸ and dynamic qualities of design afford the designer and design team a wider variety of inputs and outputs from a diverse range of disciplines and domains. In line with this view, designerly documentation may explore and include a wide range of forms, materials, media, and methods. As described in the c-word section on countenance,¹⁹⁹ these evaluative factors and options exhibit a meta-mixed methods quality. ¶ Lastly, readers might wonder what format and structure are appropriate for designerly documentation. How one shapes a design case study or project summary largely depends on multiple factors, including the project type, project intensity, the intended audience or reader, and other considerations. As Kevin and Jeanine Flores note in their Design Career Handbook (2024) “different design disciplines have slightly different approaches to a case study,”²⁰⁰ but the authors add that case studies very often use similar “building blocks.”²⁰¹ While the Floreses’ book provides lots of useful advice, one indirect takeaway worth noting is the possibility of mapping one’s case study format (to varying degrees) directly to one’s design process. While this mapping need not be exactly 1:1, this notion of mapping one’s process also affords a quasi-educational component: the reader may learn more about, appreciate, or understand the design process itself by reading the case study.
    
    
13. Dynamism: Perhaps now more than ever, no field, discipline, domain, trade, or practice is static. So why would this list maker elevate the term dynamism in specific relation to design? As is argued below, design seems to uniquely or at least uncommonly exemplify a fluid, non-static, or dynamic quality in curious ways that exceed other fields. But this list-maker should first clarify what he means by choosing this specific term. ¶ Design as a field has rapidly “evolved” and continues to evolve—but so does a whole host of fields: technology, science, art, and countless more. Thus, constant evolution as defined by dynamism is not a strong argument for the defense of design’s dynamic quality. Second, we might posit design’s frequent association with time and motion, as in motion design, kinetic experiences, interactive arrangements and environments—but here too those who work in media, film, and other fields could make similar and equally compelling claims upon the dynamic. So, as explored thus far, neither change nor motion as described above seems enough to substantiate a dynamic-design relation beyond specific cases. Thirdly, the practice and output of design is continually affected by technology—the “things” we design and design for, and thus new roles within and for design are in constant emergence. For instance, the digital interface did not exist until digital devices did. Thus, those who design the multivariate and multimodal interfaces around digital design did not exist until such technologies emerged. But then again we could say the same about the book, the building, or any number of artificial artifacts that arrive along our techno-historical timeline. Thus, this third argument is valid but seems weak, or even somewhat obvious in substance. In health, for instance, the cancer researcher did not emerge until we adequately understood cancer. Thus, many disciplines evolve in relation to invention, culture, and discovery over time. ¶ As we attempt to parse and interrogate the intersection of the dynamics and design further, let’s state the obvious: dynamism suggests a quality of being dynamic. As an adjective, dynamic can suggest change, movement, enthusiasm, or—as in music²⁰²—changes in volume over time. As a noun, dynamic often describes or indicates a relationship or behavior between individuals, groups, and things. One might thus speak of power dynamics or interpersonal dynamics. In this sense we may view both the dynamic and design as relational. ¶ As alluded to at the outset of this section—“dynamic” seems dialogically antithetical to the static. Interestingly, physicists, engineers, and others use the term “fluid dynamics”²⁰³ to describe the flow of liquids and gases. With this use of dynamics from the world of physics in mind, we inch closer to design’s uncommon capacity to organize “the flow” of things—the flow of ideas, plans, intentions, materials, aesthetics, concerns, and more. ¶ In support of this claim, this list-maker will present four interlinked positions or “legs” that underpin this claim: 1) that design as a “big-tent” domain of disciplines can and should now (or finally)²⁰⁴ stand on its own two feet and can and should be placed on equal epistemological footing alongside the “big-tents” [colleges and schools] of art, science, business, health, law, theology, psychology, and more. Unlike any of the aforementioned “big-tents,” 2) those trained in the big-tent of design are uniquely versed, skilled, and empowered to address issues that require fluid, mixed, collaborative, and flexible approaches to knowing things, understanding things, and (especially) making things. As such, 3) designers possess an uncommonly deep understanding of synthesis—assembling the tangible and intangible in ways that span people, disciplines, domains, culture, material, knowledge, form, concept, and content. Lastly, 4) design provides alterplinary²⁰⁵ and designerly²⁰⁶ positions, platforms, and processes that may best facilitate projects and people at a wide range of scales—especially ones of high complexity. Within this section, this list maker will metaphorically (and hopefully memorably) refer to these four uncommon design-oriented qualities as 1) the “collage of design as college of design,” 2) the “evaluatory countenance”²⁰⁷ of designers and design, 3) the “combinatory play” of designers and design, and 4) the “table of design.” ¶ In support of this quadrant of ideas, this list- maker must first further triangulate dynamism in relation to the four aforementioned points. More specifically, what meanings are thus derived and applied at these specific intersections, and why? To do so, we must posit dynamism firstly as non-physical moves, as movement and as momentum. Said another way, and hopefully more cogently, if design is the metaphorical “table” for the modes and material noted in positions 1-3, then who or what are the actors or occupants at the table—how do they move and interact, and who orchestrated this process and flow? To answer this question, let’s look at how this system of tables and chairs operates:
    
    A. The Dynamism of Design: If we were to attempt a visualization of design, or better yet, a visualization of the process of design, design thinking, or designerly thinking. What would such a process look like?²⁰⁸ Such efforts have been explored endlessly and exhaustively—and as such, any mature designer will likely scoff at these broad-brush attempts. This dismissive position stems from senior designers’ basic understanding that no two design problems are alike, and thus no two design processes are alike.
    
    B. The Participatory Occupants of the [Dynamic] “Table” of Design: From the design of a poster to the design of a regional master plan, we might imagine a table with any number of chairs. Those seated in these chairs may contribute in multivariate ways, not limited to form(s), content(s), perspective(s), or material(s). Using architecture as an example, we might imagine this table as an extended integrated team: the architects, owners, engineers, financiers, community, and more.
    
    C. The Operation and Behavior of the Dynamic “Table” of Design: At the table of design, we might observe the convergence of expertise, perspectives, and concerns that may, in many cases, be in tension or conflict. Here, using principles of countenance evaluation, we encounter the thorny question of who decides and how. Here, the designer is not always the one who decides, but, interestingly, is now often the one who helps lead a decision-making process. Some architects or designers may, for instance, have a strong or leading voice in this process, while others may take on a more passive stewardship-oriented role.
    
    As big-tent design continues to mature, it need not abandon the aesthetic and formal aspects that sparked its remarkable identity and growth. This is indicated in the aforementioned notion of the “collage of design as college of design.” Let us now literally imagine a collage of design as college of design that welcomes scientific evidence as much as it welcomes artistic expression. ¶ Paul Rand once said, “Design is the method of putting form and content together. Design, just as art, has multiple definitions; there is no single definition. Design can be art. Design can be aesthetics. Design is so simple, that’s why it is so complicated.”²⁰⁹ While Rand’s sentiment is well understood, one could easily counter it with a line of reasoning that posits design as everything and thus design as nothing. This calls for scholars also to draw uncomfortable lines around what design is not. The collage of design as college [or school] of design is not an “art school”—but it welcomes artists; likewise, the collage of design is not “engineering” or “business” or “design science” or “health” or “fashion” or “technology” or “media” or “language” or “style.” As one example from those just mentioned, engineers are welcome to take part in the design collage as college—but design is not engineering and engineering is not design. Such formulations of design as a disciplinary “bridge” have been described in various combinations and in various ways. For instance, in a heavily researched 2017 book, The In-Discipline of Design,²¹⁰ Annie Gentes posited design as not belonging entirely to engineering, the hard sciences, or the humanities. Instead, Gentes describes how design can operate across and between them. Along these lines, Mitesh Dixit et al.’s 2026 book Pedagogies for Anti-Disciplinary Design Education²¹¹ gathers perspectives from over a dozen contributors from just as many countries to posit and engage disciplines beyond the traditional architecture and design schools. Regardless of the disciplinary modifier chosen, adopted, or used, designers and design are steadily leaning into the uncommon (but essential to better understand and elevate) interstitial epistemological qualities of designing and design. ¶ Alas, here this list maker should also provide some clarity around why he chose “collage” as an apt descriptor for gatherings of design practice and scholarship. Collage describes the combining of materials, forms, or “fragments” into a unified whole. Oftentimes, artists of all ages use glue to “stick” fragments together. This metaphor exemplifies design in that it systematically brings a whole range of “things” together. “Things” in this case span people, disciplines, materials, form, content, expertise, and more. How this defining property of design has gotten lost is beyond the scope of this research. ¶ Notably, the collage of design is not meant to cannibalize any of the aforementioned disciplines or fields—but rather, it serves as the alterdisciplinary meeting point—the collage, the table, the collage where a range of ideas and perspectives collide. If anything, it reinforces, elevates, and celebrates the richness and plurality of “knowing” that spans our vast human traditions and institutions. While this may all sound speculative to some readers such discourse reflects the qualitative reality of designing in the 21st century. In an interview between design educators Sven Ingmar Thies and Fritz Frenkler, Frenkler reflects upon the cross-functional capacity of design, stating that, “It is becoming increasingly important for everyone to develop in-depth understanging for and engage in communication with other colleagues.”²¹² Frenkler, who was Professor of Architecture at the Technical University of Munich, notes how in his studio you will now find projects involving, “designers, programmers, engineers and other specialists.”²¹³ ¶ Designers, especially architects and planners who wish to lead design efforts, thus need to deeply understand the nature, behaviors, and expertise present at the table and “in the collage.” This understanding is all too often undermined by the design-dependency dearth-discourse dilemma highlighted in the introduction to this series. As one example of how this plays out in academia and industry alike, let’s imagine our sister domain of science placed in the scenario described next. What if an undergraduate instructor in music wished to immerse students in the methods of science? Imagine this music instructor taking a two-hour course in “science thinking”—and then, when finished, hosting a “science thinking” workshop within their music course. All too often, this is how “design” is explored and applied. ¶ Within sizable institutions, business, art, law, health and other professional domains are typically organized as colleges or schools. With design, this is occasionally the case, as in design schools and colleges of design—but just as frequently design is awkwardly placed within other domains (design placed within business, within engineering, within the arts, within any other number of things). In other cases, design is placed alongside two or three adjacent disciplines to create any number of awkward disciplinary-soup acronyms. In yet other cases, design is treated as an initiative rather than a real academic pursuit. ¶ Interestingly, 20th-century architects and educators such as Joseph F. Hudnut²¹⁴ (1886–1968) seemed to avoid any number of these traps when they founded some of the first schools of design in North America. They also intuitively viewed architecture not as separate, but as one of many disciplines under the very big tent of design. Without digressing too far into the history of design education, many of these figures also seemed to intuitively understand the designer as someone who broadly plans, orchestrates, and facilitates projects across a range of media, typologies, and scales. The tools and technologies used seemed less important than the principles that underpinned the pedagogical focus of design. ¶ As a consequence of the more recent uses and misuses of “design,” sometimes the figures charged with orchestrating this alterplinary-designerly table or collage of design are somewhat ill-equipped to do so. Thus, as this list-maker has witnessed, these figures typically learn as they go and as such pull from whatever cross-disciplinary literature they can. Sometimes, as indicated earlier, they stumble upon various pre-packaged thinking methods that, quite frankly, for seasoned design leaders, are the equivalent of a road when what’s really needed is a designerly map. Likewise, because we [designers and design educators] occasionally focus too narrowly on ever-changing software, skills, and technologies, we have lost sight of the enduring elements and principles that underpin a life in design. ¶ We can do better. We have to do better. The collages, tables, and disciplines within the domain of design are too crucial to be left adrift. Science is led by scientists—those who demonstrate a commitment to and understanding of scientific materials, methods, and means. Design should likewise lean into, return to, claim, and embrace its uncommon dynamic quality. This is paradoxically design’s aesthetic.

With utmost gratitude to the many voices cited and referenced. First published 18 Apr 2026. Last updated 3 Oct 2026. Please send edits, corrections, and suggestions to this address.

Footnotes

1. See: “John Chris Jones.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chris_Jones. ↩︎
2. See: “Design methods.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_methods. ↩︎
3. Jones, John Chris. Design Methods (2nd ed.). Van Nostrand, 1992: p. iv. ↩︎
4. Since Jones notes “craft evolution,” see also “Craft” in An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course. ↩︎
5. See: “Design studies.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_studies. ↩︎
6. Loc. cit., p. 4. ↩︎
7. Heskett, John. Design: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, 2002, p. 1. ↩︎
8. Ibid. ↩︎
9. At present, this list maker has found merit in the term “alterplinary” as an apt description of design as an epistemological area. The term “alterplinarity” is credited to Paul A. Rodgers and Craig Bremner. It was first introduced in their 2011 paper “Alterplinarity—‘Alternative Disciplinarity’ in Future Art and Design Research Pursuits.” See: Rodgers, Paul, and Craig Bremner. “Alterplinarity: ‘Alternative Disciplinarity’ in Future Art and Design Research Pursuits.” Studies in Material Thinking, vol. 6, Dec. 2011, pp. 1-16. AUT University, http://materialthinking.aut.ac.nz/sites/default/files/papers/Rodgers_Bremner.pdf. ↩︎
10. Rodgers and Bremner expanded upon this position in their 2017 paper, “The Concept Of The Design Discipline,” in which the authors put forward orward an “alterplinary manifesto,” with alterplinary described as “a portmanteau of ‘alternative’ and ‘disciplinary.’” See: Rodgers, Paul A., and Craig Bremner. “The Concept of the Design Discipline.” Dialectic, vol. 1, no. 1, 2017, pp. 19–38. https://doi.org/10.3998/dialectic.14932326.0001.104. ↩︎
11. Loc. cit. ↩︎
12. Loc. cit., p. 331. ↩︎
13. Ibid. ↩︎
14. Loc. cit., p. 332. ↩︎
15. “Into, through and for” is a nod to Sir Christopher’s oft-referenced paper, “Research in Art and Design.” See: Frayling, Christopher. “Research in Art and Design.” Royal College of Art Research Papers. 1(1), (1993/4), pp. 1-5. ↩︎
16. Loc. cit., p. iv. ↩︎
17. See: Cross, Nigel. “Designerly ways of knowing.” Design Studies, vol. 3, no. 4, Oct 1982, pp. 221-227. ↩︎
18. See: “Nigel Cross.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Dec 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Cross. ↩︎
19. “Open University.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 26 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_University. ↩︎
20. See: Cross, Nigel. “Developing Design as a Discipline.” Journal of Engineering Design, vol. 29, no. 12, 2018, pp. 691-708. ↩︎
21. Loc. cit. ↩︎
22. See: “Solutionism.” Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus, Cambridge University Press, www.dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/solutionism. Accessed 12 June 2026. ↩︎
23. Loc. cit., 225. ↩︎
24. Loc. cit. 224. ↩︎
25. Lawson, Bryan R. Problem Solving in Architectural Design. 1972. University of Aston in Birmingham, PhD dissertation. Aston Publications Repository, publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/40597/1/Lawson_BR_1972.pdf. ↩︎
26. Loc. cit., 226. ↩︎
27. Loc. cit. ↩︎
28. See: Cross, Nigel. “Design thinking: What just happened?” Design Studies, vol. 86, 2023, p. 7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2023.101187. ↩︎
29. Loc. cit. ↩︎
30. See also: “Context” in An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course. ↩︎
31. Kolko, Jon. “Novelty ≠ Creativity: The Problem of Psychological Measurement in Design Practice and Education.” Design Issues, vol. 42, no. 2, Spring 2026, p. 4, https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI.a.727. ↩︎
32. Poggenpohl, Sharon and Sato Keiichi. Design Integrations: Research and Collaboration. Intellect, 2009, pp. 10–11. ↩︎
33. Ibid. ↩︎
34. See: “Bauhaus.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus. ↩︎
35. Poggenpohl and Soto, Back Cover. ↩︎
36. Ibid. ↩︎
37. Berry, Anne H. et al. Guiding Principles for Inclusive Design Values: Reimagining Design Practice and Education. Rockport, 2026, p. 201. ↩︎
38. Julier, Guy. The Culture of Design. 2nd ed. Sage, 2014, p. xi. ↩︎
39. Loc. cit. ↩︎
40. Loc. cit. ↩︎
41. Loc. cit. ↩︎
42. “Don Norman.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 9 Aug 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Norman. ↩︎
43. “The Design of Everyday Things.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Apr 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_of_Everyday_Things. ↩︎
44. Gram, Maggie. The Invention of Design. Basic Books, 2025, Inside Front Jacket. ↩︎
45. Ibid., p. 6. ↩︎
46. Gibson, Michael R., and Keith M. Owens, editors. Navigating the Landscapes of Design Research: Finding Your Way. Routledge, 2026, p. 1–3. ↩︎
47. Ibid., p. 4–20. ↩︎
48. Sparke, Penny. An Introduction to Design and Culture. Fifth ed. Routledge, 2026, p. 6. ↩︎
49. See: Mejía, M. “Assemblages of Design Activities: From Trade to Strategy”. Diid, no. 88, May 2026, pp. 89-95, doi:10.30682/diid8826f. ↩︎
50. Loc. cit., 63. ↩︎
51. Loc. cit. ↩︎
52. Loc. cit., 64. ↩︎
53. In 2004, the American designer Hugh Dubberly collected and compiled over a hundred examples of such “how” diagrams and then self-published them in a book titled How do you design? A Compendium of Models. See: Dubberly, Hugh. How do you design? A Compendium of Models. Dubberly Design Office, 2005, Available at: https://www.dubberly.com/articles/how-do-you-design.html. ↩︎
54. See: “Double Diamond (design process model).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 Apr 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Diamond_(design_process_model). ↩︎
55. For a short history of the Double Diamond, see: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/the-double-diamond/history-of-the-double-diamond/. ↩︎
56. See: “Convergence” in An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course. ↩︎
57. As an alternative to brainstorming, see “Charettes” in An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course. ↩︎
58. Loc. cit., 64. ↩︎
59. Ibid. ↩︎
60. A more thorough exploration of these ideas can be found in this list maker’s 2025 motion graphics film, Towards a Dynamic Discipline of Design. See: Vlahos, Dan, and Steven Cotroneo. “Towards a Dynamic Discipline of Design.” Motion Graphics Film, Presented at the 2025 Motion Design Education Summit (MODE ’25), June 2025, Prague, Available at: https://danvlahos.com/work/towards-a-dynamic-discipline-of-design/. ↩︎
61. Loc. cit., 278. ↩︎
62. “Marjorie Elliott Bevlin.” The Islands’ Sounder, 6 July 2009, https://www.islandssounder.com/2009/07/06/marjorie-elliott-bevlin/. ↩︎
63. Bevlin, Marjorie Elliot. Design Through Discovery (1st ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963, p. v. ↩︎
64. Bevlin, Marjorie Elliot. Design Through Discovery (6th ed.). Harcourt Brace, 1991, p. vii. ↩︎
65. Ibid. ↩︎
66. See: “Biomimetics.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 25 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomimetics. ↩︎
67. Loc. cit., v. ↩︎
68. Ibid. ↩︎
69. Seel. N. (Ed.). (2012) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1009-1012). New York: Springer Science & Business Media. ↩︎
70. See: “Constructivism (philosophy of education).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education). ↩︎
71. “Jean Piaget.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget. ↩︎
72. See: “Active learning.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 1 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_learning. ↩︎
73. See: Davis, Meredith et. al. Design as a Catalyst for Learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1997. ↩︎
74. See: McLaughlin, Jacqueline E., et al. “Design Thinking Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Experiences across Four Universities.” PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 3, 2022, e0265902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265902. ↩︎
75. See: “Charles and Ray Eames.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_and_Ray_Eames. ↩︎
76. The Vignelli’s Archives currently reside at Rochester Institute of Technology. See: “Vignelli Archives.” Rochester Institute of Design, https://www.rit.edu/vignellicenter/vignelli-archives. ↩︎
77. See: Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Baker Academic, 2017. ↩︎
78. Loc. cit. ↩︎
79. See: “Critique” in An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course. ↩︎
80. Ibid. ↩︎
81. Tharp, Bruce M. and Stephanie M. Tharp. Discursive Design: Critical, Speculative, and Alternative Things. MIT Press, 2018, p. 5. ↩︎
82. Ibid. ↩︎
83. See: “Critical design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_design. ↩︎
84. See: “Human-centered design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-centered_design. ↩︎
85. See: “Participatory design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 April 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_design. ↩︎
86. “Sharon Poggenpohl.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Dec 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Poggenpohl. ↩︎
87. Poggenpohl, Sharon. Design Theory to Go. Ligature Press, 2018, p. 195. ↩︎
88. Loc. cit. ↩︎
89. Poggenpohl, p. Back Cover. ↩︎
90. Ibid., p. 168. ↩︎
91. Ibid., p. 176. ↩︎
92. Morin, Edgar. On Complexity. Hampton Press, 2008, p. 49. ↩︎
93. Loc. cit., p. 183. ↩︎
94. Loc. cit. ↩︎
95. Students interested in design might benefit from more focused study in subjects such as discourse analysis. See: “Discourse analysis.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Dec 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_analysis. ↩︎
96. Coy, Chris. “Milton Glaser Draws & Lectures.” Vimeo, uploaded by C Coy, 9 Oct 2006, https://vimeo.com/6986303. ↩︎
97. Loc. cit. ↩︎
98. Loc. cit. ↩︎
99. Loc. cit. ↩︎
100. Prestbo, Bradford J., FAIA, From Mind to Paper. Prestbo Press, 2024, p. 3-7. ↩︎
101. “Hand axe.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_axe. ↩︎
102. See: Brown, Tim. Change by Design. HarperBusiness, 2009. ↩︎
103. “Sam Farber.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Mar 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Farber. ↩︎
104. “Smart Design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Apr 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Design. ↩︎
105. “Affordance.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance. ↩︎
106. “User-centered design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Oct 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-centered_design. ↩︎
107. “Ergonomics.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 Jun 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergonomics. ↩︎
108. “Universal design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Jun 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_design. ↩︎
109. “Accessibility.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility. ↩︎
110. “Materials science.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 31 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_science. ↩︎
111. “Good Grips Peeler, 1989.” The Museum of Modern Art, Object no. 401.1994, https://www.moma.org/collection/works/3758. ↩︎
112. “Karim Rashid.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karim_Rashid. ↩︎
113. “Garbino Trash Can, 1996.” The Museum of Modern Art, Object no. 503.2005.1-11, https://www.moma.org/collection/works/98330. ↩︎
114. One of the earliest and most notable of these voices was Victor Papanek, who first published his book, Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, in 1971. See: “Victor Papanek.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Nov 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Papanek. ↩︎
115. Volf, Michael. “Karim Rashid’s Garbo at 20: Does It Still Hold Up?” Metropolis, 19 Jan. 2016, metropolismag.com/viewpoints/karim-rashids-garbo-20/. ↩︎
116. Also known as the “digital age.” See: “Information Age.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Age. ↩︎
117. “Chris Anderson (entrepreneur).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Feb 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Anderson_(entrepreneur). ↩︎
118. Anderson, Chris. “TED Curator Chris Anderson on Crowd Accelerated Innovation,” Wired, December 2010, https://www.wired.com/2010/12/ff_tedvideos/. ↩︎
119. “TED (conference).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(conference). ↩︎
120. “The Long Tail (book).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail_(book). ↩︎
121. Loc. cit. ↩︎
122. Nelson, Harold G., and Erik Stolterman. The Design Way (2nd ed.). MIT Press, 2012. ↩︎
123. Loc. cit. ↩︎
124. See: “The Splendor of Design” pp. 191–200. ↩︎
125. Loc. cit., p. 191. ↩︎
126. Maeda, John. How to Speak Machine. Portfolio/Penguin, 2019, p. xiii. ↩︎
127. “Interaction design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Feb 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_design. ↩︎
128. “User experience design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Jun 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience_design. ↩︎
129. “Muriel Cooper.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Apr 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Cooper. ↩︎
130. An event celebrating Cooper’s life and work was held at MIT in 2017, where many of her former students and colleagues reflected on her impact. See: “Muriel Cooper’s Lasting Imprint.” MIT Media Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, www.media.mit.edu/posts/muriel-cooper-lasting-imprint/.. ↩︎
131. “MIT Media Lab.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 29 May 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Media_Lab. ↩︎
132. Reinfurt, David, and Robert Wiesenberger. Muriel Cooper. The MIT Press, 2017, xv. ↩︎
133. “Lev Manovich.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 6 Jun 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Manovich. ↩︎
134. “New media.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Apr 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media. ↩︎
135. Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. The MIT Press, 2001, pp. 218–243. ↩︎
136. Ibid., p. 218. ↩︎
137. Ibid., p. 219. ↩︎
138. Loc. cit. ↩︎
139. See: “Why Google Engineers Design by Numbers.” The Guardian, 5 Feb. 2014, www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/05/why-google-engineers-designers
     . ↩︎
140. Ibid. ↩︎
141. Ibid. ↩︎
142. See for instance: Darzentas, Dimitrios. et. al. “Data-inspired co-design for museum and gallery visitor experiences.” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 36, Article e14. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0890060421000317. ↩︎
143. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Robert I. Sutton. The Knowing-Doing-Gap. Harvard Business School Press, 2000. ↩︎
144. Loc. cit. ↩︎
145. Loc. cit. ↩︎
146. Cohen, Harlow B. “The Performance Paradox,” Academy of Management Executives, 12 (1998): 30. ↩︎
147. Ibid. ↩︎
148. As referenced in the D-Words Introduction. See: Rodgers and Bremner. ↩︎
149. See: Lidwell et. al. Universal Principles of Design (3rd ed.). Rockport, 2023, 104-105. ↩︎
150. “T. S. Eliot.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 July 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Eliot. ↩︎
151. “Four Quartets.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 July 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Quartets. ↩︎
152. See: “Burnt Norton.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Feb 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_Norton. ↩︎
153. “Burnt Norton.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., Accessed 22 Jul. 2026,  www.britannica.com/topic/Burnt-Norton. ↩︎
154. Elliot, T. S., The Four Quartets, HarperCollins, 1971 [1943], p. 15. ↩︎
155. This list maker will note that while these terms [positive and negative distraction] are somewhat subjective and context-dependent—for instance, in architecture and design, a positive distraction may describe an environmental feature that reduces stress or diverts attention. The use of positive distraction here is both inclusive of and broader than such a definition. ↩︎
156. “Hexis.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 July 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexis. ↩︎
157. Ulrich, Roger S. “View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.” Science, vol. 224, no. 4647, 1984, pp. 420–421. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402. ↩︎
158. “Evidence-based design.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 82 July 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_design. ↩︎
159. Han, Ke-Tsung, et al. “Effects of Indoor Plants on Human Functions: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, no. 12, 2022, p. 7454. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127454. ↩︎
160. Jiang, Shan. “Positive Distractions and Play in the Public Spaces of Pediatric Healthcare Environments: A Literature Review.” HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, 2020, pp. 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586720901707. ↩︎
161. Loc. cit. ↩︎
162. “Dark pattern.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 18 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern. ↩︎
163. “Infinite scrolling.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 26 June 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_scrolling. ↩︎
164. “Doomscrolling.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 July 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomscrolling. ↩︎
165. Leo XIV, Pope. Magnifica Humanitas. The Holy See, 2026, sec. 136. ↩︎
166. Lang, James M. Distracted: Why Students Can’t Focus and What You Can Do About It. Basic Books, 2020, pp. 1–22. ↩︎
167. Ibid., p. 4. ↩︎
168. Ibid., p. 17. ↩︎
169. LeDuc, Brian. “Using design to bring back our humanity in a world full of code | TEDxUCSanDiego.” YouTube, uploaded by Tedx Talks, 4 Aug. 2026,  ↩︎
170. Ibid. ↩︎
171. Ibid. ↩︎
172. Ibid. ↩︎
173. Ibid. ↩︎
174. UN General Assembly. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, 217 (III) A, 1948, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights. ↩︎
175. “Victor Papanek.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Nov 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Papanek. ↩︎
176. Papanek, Victor. Design for the Real World. 2^nd ed., 1971, p. 28. ↩︎
177. This relationship between Gowan and Papanek is chronicled in: Gowan, Al. Victor Papanek: Path of a Design Prophet, Merrimack Media, 2015. ↩︎
178. Lobovich, William L. Design for Dignity: Accessible Environments for People with Disabilities. John Wiley & Sons, 1993. ↩︎
179. “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 July 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990. ↩︎
180. Antonelli, Paola. Foreword. Designing Questions, by Anab Jain et al., Hatje Cantze, 2026, p. 9 ↩︎
181. Loc. cit. ↩︎
182. Hendren, Sara. What Can a Body Do?. Riverhead Books, 2020, p. 3. ↩︎
183. Ibid, p. 10. ↩︎
184. Cary, John. Design for Good: A New Era of Architecture for Everyone. Island Press, 2017. ↩︎
185. Ibid., p. 20. ↩︎
186. Gates, Melinda. Foreword. Design for Good, by John Cary. Island Press, 2017, p. 13. ↩︎
187. See: “Wim Gilles.” Dutch Design Daily, 10 Dec. 2017, https://dutchdesigndaily.com/stories/wim-gilles/. ↩︎
188. “Gilles Paquet.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Nov 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Paquet. ↩︎
189. Gilles, Willem and Paquet, Gilles, “On Delta Knowledge,” in Edging Toward the Year 2000: Management Research and Education in Canada, Canadian Federation of Deans of Management and Administrative Studies, 1989. ↩︎
190. Jacques R. Giard is Emeritus Professor of Design in The Design School at Arizona State University (ASU). Before ASU he was director of the School of Industrial Design at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. ↩︎
191. Giard, Jacques, and Wim Gilles. “Delta Knowledge: Place and Significance in Industrial Design Education,” Presented at the ICSID Educational Seminar 2001, Seongnam, Seoul, Korea, October 2001. ↩︎
192. Ibid. ↩︎
193. Ibid. ↩︎
194. “Fritz Machlup.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Mar 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Machlup. ↩︎
195. Machlup, Fritz. Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution, and Economic Significance. Vol. 1: Knowledge and Knowledge Production, Princeton University Press, 1980. ↩︎
196. Loc. cit. ↩︎
197. Vlahos, Dan. “Codex.” An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course, [2026–], https://danvlahos.com/work/an-incomplete-list-of-c-words-for-the-creative-course/#codex. ↩︎
198. As referenced in the D-Words Introduction. See: Rodgers and Bremner. ↩︎
199. Vlahos, Dan. “Countenance.” An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course, [2026–], https://danvlahos.com/work/an-incomplete-list-of-c-words-for-the-creative-course/#countenance. ↩︎
200. Flores, Kevin, and Jeanine Flores. Design Career Handbook, 2024, p. 115. ↩︎
201. Loc. cit. ↩︎
202. “Dynamics (music).” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Sep 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_(music). ↩︎
203. “Fluid dynamics.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Sep 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics ↩︎
204. One might rightly posit what evidence supports this maturing of design. Some qualitative evidence can be found here: Other Tomorrows, and Swissnex in Boston and New York. The Expanding Scope of Design: A Survey of Swiss and US Designers on the State of the Design Landscape, 2023, https://swissnex.org/app/uploads/sites/8/2023/12/The-Expanding-Scope-of-Design-report-1.pdf ↩︎
205. Rodgers and Bremner, 2011. ↩︎
206. Cross, 1982. ↩︎
207. See: “Countenance” in An Incomplete List of C-Words for the Creative Course, https://danvlahos.com/work/an-incomplete-list-of-c-words-for-the-creative-course/#countenance. ↩︎
208. In part this list maker explored this question in: Vlahos, Dan, and Steven Cotroneo. “Towards a Dynamic Discipline of Design” in Edited Conference Proceedings of the 2025 Motion Design Education Summit, June 19-21, 2025: edited by Jessica Barness et al., MODE Society, 2025, pp. 169-186 ↩︎
209. Maeda, John. “Thoughts on Paul Rand.” Design Observer, 14 Nov. 2016, designobserver.com/thoughts-on-p-rand/. ↩︎
210. Gentes, Annie. The In-Discipline of Design: Bridging the Gap Between Humanisities and Engineering, Springer, 2017. ↩︎
211. Dixit et al. Pedagogies for Anti-Disciplinary Design Education. Routledge, 2026. ↩︎
212. Thies, Sven Ingmar, editor. Teaching Graphic Design. Birkhäuser, 2023, p. 112. ↩︎
213. Ibid. ↩︎
214. “Joseph Hudnut.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Sep 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hudnut. ↩︎

FILED IN: Perspectives