Week 7- 3 posts and a question

Kostelnick and Roberts

1. “Like writing, design is a process of inventing, revising, and editing. As Fred designs, he make several discoveries, just as writers do as they draft and revise.” There are many similarities between the editing process of both writing and design. Content and subjects are modified throughout the process of creation which requires new strategies and directions to take in the design. With this being said, a designer should never become “married” to the first design approach. All designs can be subject to change. (Sounds a bit like the “terms and agreement” to licensing.)
2. “Using conventions helps you satisfy your readers’ expectations and also helps readers understand the message-on a variety of levels” If the designer doesn’t conform to certain conventions, for example: grammar and punctuation, they risk confusing the viewer, miscommunicating, or possibly sounding ignorant. Another good point is, “On a larger scale, including an abstract in a formal report or an article gives readers a glance at the big picture as well as helps them decide whether to read the text.” There can be a fine line between being bold or flashy and being misconstrued and distracting. Its handling the design in a rational view through systems such as conventions that helps create a successful, interpretive design.

Tufte

3. Snow wrote: “It was now time to act; after all, the reason we seek casual explanations is in order to intervene, to govern the cause so as to govern the effect: Policy-thinking is and must be causality-thinking.” A method to which you cause to effects to happen in order to gain information.

Question: With regards to “causality-thinking”. Wouldn’t this be considered a reckless method by which any information gained could be misleading as to what the true cause of the situation? Couldn’t wild allegations run rampant with this way of annalization?