The Hidden Costs of CAD (part 1 of 3)

Join me and Milton Glaser in discussing design technologies and the hidden costs of computer-aided design. This is the first entry of three on this subject.

The other day I was having a conversation with a couple of colleagues… Strike that. The other day I was having a rant session with a couple of colleagues about how technology is sucking the brains out of our students and making their work as predictable and unresponsive to context as a Mega Mart. This is not a unique complaint; variations on this theme have been happening across the design world since I was in undergrad. Strike that. This has probably been going on since the invention of computers- mechanical drafting- rulers- ink and papyrus. Can you imagine a couple early designers sitting around and griping about how this new ink and papyrus is a far cry from the intuitive designs derived from drawing in the dirt?

And the unstoppable march of progress went on through the ages – sticks and dirt, ink and papyrus, quill and parchment, pen and paper, pencil and 100% rag vellum, dots-per-inch and feeder paper, mouse and screen, pixels-per-inch and PDFs, pen and digital tablet, finger and touch screen, etc. Every new design tool has had its proponents and its detractors. On the other hand, you may not be a Luddite simply because you are hesitant to fully embrace all that computer-aided design has to offer us. In fact, I consider myself a conscientious objector to some technological advances. Ironic coming from someone who has been knee deep in design technologies for over fifteen years? I have been called geek, technophile, “computer person”. I suppose it depends on your point of view, but I don’t believe you can influence the direction of technological progress unless you choose to be a part of that progress.

Defining technological progress

“Computers are to design as microwaves are to cooking.” – Milton Glaser

Technology is a term broadly abused, not only by politicians. From the invention of the wheel to the evolution of the modern coffee mug, we often forget that technology can simply refer to the application of science to the  needs of humanity (see definitions). Defining technological progress is a bit more challenging.

Technological progress, I would argue, is not simply a blind devotion to embracing all that is new. Technology is not a panacea and it is not a thing to be achieved. Rather, it is a continuing process of call and response to the way things are and how they could be better through human innovation. Steps along the path may falter or fail, but we still make progress in the process itself. Consider this in relation to the following description of social justice, from Donna Riley’s Engineering and Social Justice (2008, Morgan & Claypool):

“. . . . our sense of social justice is necessarily normative, i.e., drawing on our sense of what should be and implicitly comparing what should be (social justice) to what is (some reality of injustice). . . . . Social justice is defined by this openness to change. It recognizes that people in every time and place continue the struggle for justice in new contexts. Social justice is not so much a thing to be achieved, as it is a continuing process and an ongoing struggle.”

When I state that I choose to be a part of technological progress in order to influence its direction I am raising a patriotic flag to humanity, not to its gadgets. I believe that human innovation, in the form of technology, can do good in this world with the help of informed, progressive, and prudent leaders. Yes, sometimes my computer crashes and I, too, wish nostalgically to the good old days of pen and paper. These bad experiences inform my perspective, but I don’t let them define it.

This discussion will be continued with The Hidden Costs of CAD (part 2 of 3). In the meantime I invite you to join the discussion by posting in the comments, below.