Talk:Participatory design/Archive 1

Archive 1

What is this article about

Is this about design of software, design of clothing, design of buildings, or what? And why the capital letter "D" in "Design", rather than lower-case? Michael Hardy 18:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I moved the above comment here from the main article. I hope I answered the question with the small rewrite I did. Actually I think it could apply to design of anything, since it's more of a general procedure or principle to involve the user.

I did the rewrite because it was almost word for word from the website I added as an External link, the very first Google hit. This looks like an excellent topic, and this stub should be a good start. I left the capital in Design for now because it was that way on the web site, although that may be just because it was title case. Spalding 22:10, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Merge with User-design

Participatory design seems to be a common industry term. I haven't heard of User-design. The hyphen format doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. The [google results] are low compared to part. design and the results are for the non-hyphenated term. Clubmarx | Talk 17:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Single-source and Inline-cites-needed tags

I'm assuming these tags are just for the non-"Scandinavia" sections? There seems to be plenty of sources and inline citations, just not really anywhere other than the "in Scandinavia" part.... (That section's information needs some integration into the rest of the article, too, as I'm sure it's not so useful to just talk about Scandinavian research contexts.) —AySz88\^-^ 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks a good point. But please note that this approach to design started in Scandinavia - as described in the referred papers. -A, Dec 1, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.166.144 (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jargon sentence cut

Jargon sentence cut from article: "Participatory design is often associated with emancipation of end-users." Jargon-y enough to make it vacuous. If someone has something to say here, say it clearly. - Jmabel | Talk 01:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you read paper about the topic, that's the wording used. - Pedro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.166.144 (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Co-design be merged into Participatory design. Depending on how you look at it, co-design is either a logical extension of participatory design or just another name for the same thing. The term "co-design" is relatively new, arguably covered by WP:NEO.

I note this edit by MortenEspensen, with edit summary "CoDesign and Participatory design is exactly not the same. See Co-creation and the new landscapes of design by Sanders and Strappers (2008): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15710880701875068"

Looking at that source, which is also cited in the co-design article, I see the following:

"It is interesting to note that even though the terms co-creation, cocreation, codesign and co-design have not yet made much of an impact on the online dictionaries and encyclopaedia, each of these terms retrieves hundreds of thousands of hits on the search engine www.google.com. In fact, co-design alone pulled up 1,700,000 hits on 2 July 2007. This attests to the interest of people around the world in these content areas. Moreover, counts on Google Scholar (11,800 for codesign, 538 for co-creation, as compared to 3,470,000 for product design and 17,400,000 for design; on 18 August 2007) indicate that the terms are also seriously discussed in academic design circles. It seems that we are talking about a very recent and relevant phenomenon. Or are we?

Actually, the practice of collective creativity in design has been around for nearly 40 years, going under the name participatory design. Much of the activity in participatory design (this was the terminology used until the recent obsession with what is now called co-creation/co-design) has been going on in Europe."

I added the bold to highlight the key point here. This quote shows that the source supports the merger of Co-design into Participatory design

Yaris678 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Merge: It appears that codesign is participatory design by another name, and perhaps the promoters of codesign never bothered to research what participatory design actually is. While such an approach might be beneficial in marketing the topic, it violates WP:NOT unless Co-design were rewritten to say that is indeed just a rebranding of participatory design. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Not Merge Co-design is broader term. Participatory design requires the involvement of certain stakeholders. See for instance Ehn, P., & Sjögren, D. (1991). From systems description to scipt for action. In J. M. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work : cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

This makes participatory design belong to co-design. But co-design can also cover perspectives of not present stakeholders, for instance children who can not participated. See for instance Ackoff, R. L., Magidson, J., & Addison, H. J. (2006). Idealized design : how to dissolve tomorrow's crisis...today. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Pub.

So the term definitely earns it's place and should not be merged with participatory design.

Moreover I don't think in general that researcher would agree that collective creativity is synonymous with participatory design as claimed as stated in: "the practice of collective creativity in design has been around for nearly 40 years, going under the name participatory design." Participatory design, as argued by it's founder Ehn (cited above) is focused on bringing non-professional designers into a design process, not any design work including more than one individual. -Albinsson (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If we don't have sources that actually state it is a broader term/technique, then we're risking violating WP:SYN. A source that compares the two, discusses the history of each, etc would be ideal. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Merge. It's not clear to me from the sources that Co-design is distinct enough from PD to require a separate article, or that there is enough notable, generally useful secondary source content about Co-design out there for the article to stand on its own. Indeed, if you take out the unnecessary "people who are related to this concept" list and prune extraneous external links a bit, the whole article can fit comfortably into a single section on the Participatory Design page. Jtmorgan (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Determining consensus in the merger discussion

Do we have consensus here? To me it looks looks like the numbers and the sources are on the side of merge. But I'm happy to discuss it further with Albinsson. If we still can't reach consensus, we could ask people at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Yaris678 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Done

I've done the merge. I have left out, the following bit:

Co-design is a development of systems thinking, which according to C. West Churchman "begins when first you view the world through the eyes of another."

That is an interesting quote, but saying "Co-design is a development of systems thinking" isn't supported by the quote, because the quote is from before the term was used. I have added systems thinking to the "see also" section, which I think is fair enough.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Participatory design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141223080931/http://www.worldseedproject.com/ to http://www.worldseedproject.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)