The world is filled with artefacts/products, systems, and environments. We consider these to
be made by humans who determine their subsequent use as suggested by their embedded
characteristics. Often these artefacts are the result of a design process. That is to say, they
are developed by designers through some considered design process. This holds true for
Product designers, Architects or Engineers. When developing their artefacts, these
designers make many varied design decisions. In essence these designers determine the
nature and characteristics of the artefact. These may include both functional and non-
functional issues. These design decisions are sometimes related to each other in a
determined way [“cause-effect relationship”], and sometimes they relate to each other in
unexpected or non-determined ways [uncertainty]. Nevertheless, these design decisions
demonstrate intent on the part of the designer. The intent may not be consistent with actual
subsequent use of the artefact. This mismatch or more importantly an endeavour to move
towards an absence of mismatch between intent and actuality, often affects the perceived
“value” of the artefact. The proposition is that designers propose predetermined rituals of
use, and certainly notions of value when developing the embodiment of an artefact. In
doing so they make many assumptions which may or may not be consistent with the
perceptions of the user and indeed the actual rituals once the artefact is utilised, therefore
for every aspect of the artefact the designer determines there are a number of issues in need
of resolution arising as a direct result of their determination there is a concomitant
indeterminism. Drawing upon literature found in both Science and Design, this paper
discusses the nature of the struggle [contradiction] between issues of determinism and nondeterminism
in
design,
suggesting
some
strategies
for
closing
this
gap during
the
design
process.
DRS 2012 Bangkok
