I'm relatively new to this network and not yet familiar with all of the customs. Perhaps this is why I'm finding many of the categorizations that structure the site somewhat troublesome. For example, on my profile I'm asked to rate my interest in various "design" disciplines (fashion design, communication design, industrial design, and audio/visual). Call me crazy, but I think there is possibly a conflict here with the underlying intent of the site.
I certainly recognize that the predominant modes of design training rests in these disciplines. However, it stands to reason that many designers aren't trained to be designers in these traditions. Take this and compound it with the notion that design is a cross-cutting process that, for instance, might be better described in terms of, oh let's say, teaching and learning design, empathy design, sustainable design, scalable design, systems design, and/or behavioral design. I suppose I'm more interested in the conversations that can happen when we approach problems from a perspective of common ground rather than the traditions that have brought us here. Is there a way to move beyond these industry-centered skills categorizations into skills and methods that can bring us closer to the social themes we are here to affect.
Semantics is everything.
www.semeiotica.com
