What are my hobbies?

From time to time I dabble on the Ukulele but you can watch someone way more talented than me doing that. Occasionally I get arts-n-craftsy, like when I bought the book Socks Appeal and spent the weekend sewing cute and fuzzies. Other times I take my color media on holiday (shout out to Copic for their unparalleled sketch markers):

    

But it has been a painfully long time since I’ve had a decent, time-consuming hobby. Maybe that’s because I work too much. Or maybe I spend too much time on the computer. Perhaps it’s because we live in a one bedroom apartment in which my husband does not enjoy having my arts and crafts strewn about the living room floor for days on end. In any case, the last substantial hobby I had was around the time I started grad school: fashion doll photography.

Fashion doll photography?

Yep. I took pictures of Barbies fashion dolls. Oh, don’t knock it ’til you try it. Fashion dolls as subjects are an excellent blend of human figure and still life. And I’m not the only weirdo out there. Parents, hide your children. Everyone else, check out the Flickr group, Fashion Doll! I hardly ever post there anymore, but I still hold the title of absent admin.

There’s also a Flickr set that shows some of my good, and not-so-good, work from several photo shoots:

A little creeped out? Well take heart! I seem to have found a new hobby 85% less disturbing and 43% more delicious: cooking! Everybody loves a good cook. Everybody loves a good cook as long as she doesn’t upload photos of the delicious food she’s not sharing.

There are deadlines in every aspect of our lives. Some we create for ourselves, and others are imposed upon us. In preparing students for professional practice, interior design educators can make the deadline more than a Doomsday Clock; we can harness it as a teaching tool. To do that we need to understand the different types of deadlines at our disposal.

Hard Deadlines

Hard Deadlines are graded deadlines that incur some meaningful and immediate penalty if not met. Hard deadlines are useful in that they (1) provide students with concrete time management objectives, and (2) reflect the realities of our profession. Situations that may call for a hard deadline:

• Window of opportunity (e.g. Teacher has set aside two days for red-lining draft of construction documents)
• Interdependence with other people / projects / components (e.g. Project team needs the perspective by tomorrow to finish presentation)

Hard deadlines can create a healthy sense of urgency about the work to be done. Student feedback in my own course evaluations suggest hard deadlines offer tangible incentives to keep pace with coursework. The challenge, then, is not to let hard deadlines become a crutch. Soft / target deadlines provide opportunities to learn how to self-motivate without external incentives.

“You’ll be amazed what you can accomplish once you start focusing on results instead of time and effort.”

- Professor Peter Munton, Florida State University

Soft Deadlines / Target Deadlines

Soft Deadlines, or Target Deadlines are flexible deadlines that incur little to no immediate penalty if not met. Soft deadlines are useful in that they (1) provide low-risk opportunities for students to learn how deadlines work and (2) allow for timeline flexibility for both student and teacher, especially helpful the first semester you teach a course. Situations that may call for a soft / target deadline:

• No interdependence with other people / projects / components (e.g. Task is minor, will not impact other people, projects, or components)
• Safety net (e.g. Student will want to finish by this deadline to leave 48 hours for printing)
• Multitasking time management (e.g. Student has a test on the day the project is due, needs to finish early to study)

Soft deadlines allow students to learn to self-motivate and manage their time. Student feedback in my own course evaluations suggest soft deadlines are less effective than hard deadlines for major project milestones. Further, too many soft deadlines can create the illusion of vapor deadlines, setting students up for failure when a real deadline doesn’t just *poof*.

“I can’t grade what you wanted to do, only what you did accomplish in the time that was given to you.”

- me

Vapor Deadlines

Vapor Deadlines, borrowed from vaporware, describe deadlines that magically disappear whenever students fall behind. This is not the same as soft deadlines, see above. Vapor deadlines are toxic to students’ work ethic, time management, and ability to differentiate fantasy from reality.

I do not recommend the use of vapor deadlines. Sometimes deadlines have to change, I’ll grant you that, but teachers who habitually use vapor deadlines may find it difficult to prepare students for the realities of hard deadlines in professional practice.

Setting Deadlines – Hard or Soft?

So which is better, hard or soft deadlines? The answer is both (or, maybe, it depends). Both hard and soft deadlines have their place in the classroom. Like so many aspects of course planning, the question becomes “what are the desired student learning outcomes”? Refer to the hints above as you plan your deadlines. Is someone or something relying on that deadline? Is the deadline more of a guideline than a rule? What role does this deadline play in the overall project pacing?

I just finished a semester in which the deadlines of the final project were very well timed, resulting in a much higher success rate than the first project in the same semester. Student feedback, in conjunction with my own assessment, resulted in the following plans for next semester…

Integrate hard and soft deadlines. Pair an instructor-created schedule of hard deadlines with a student-created schedule of hard and soft deadlines. Students will receive graded evaluations to help them understand how well they meet instructor-set hard deadlines and un-graded peer-evaluations to assess how they’re meeting soft deadlines.

Set them up for success. We’ll spend a little time at the start of the semester by discussing the types of deadlines we’ll be using, what resources are available to help them meet deadlines, and what the penalties are for missed deadlines. This information should also be included in the syllabus and/or course policies.

It can be tempting to think that someone else, somewhere down the line, will teach them about time management. It’s possible, but the longer they go down that road the harder it will be to change course. It’s time to pay it forward with the hope that students take what they’ve learned about time management in one course and apply it to other areas of their lives. To do this they need to understand what influences their personal productivity and what motivates them. This requires some self-education. Discussion starters:

• Scott Young’s, How to Motivate Yourself Without Hard Deadlines
• Erin Falconer’s Time is All We Have: 3 Ways to Increase Return on Investment

What are your thoughts?

• How have you used deadlines as teaching tools?
• What resources have you used to facilitate student success in meeting deadlines?

Dear Belkin,

Last month I purchased your Laptop Cooling Stand (#F5L001) from our local Best Buy. The product is very effective at cooling my laptop during long work hours but there is one small defect that concerns me: namely, the position of the cooling fan. You see, the fan is positioned in such a way that as I reach my hand under there to open the folding leg I invariably stick my finger into the fan instead of the pull for the leg. More often than not, the fan is operational and this results in the severing of the skin on the tip of my finger. As if the pain wasn’t bad enough, I also get blood on my precious MacBook Pro. The product designer who chose to position the fan opening a mere quarter-inch from the pull has clearly never heard of Don Norman, nor could he/she have been trained in the subtle art of user-centered design because in user-centered design one of the primary foci is *not* severing digits of the user whilst operating the device. Or, perhaps you consider this a “user error” in which case I refer you again to the work of Don Norman.

I have now sliced my finger tip off three times while attempting to use this “Laptop Cooling Stand” and have determined that I don’t enjoy your product at all, despite its indisputable cooling capabilities. I do see that you have a new version of the product (Laptop Cooling Lounge (#F5L028), which I would hope no longer carries the finger-slicing features of its predecessor. If you would be so kind, I would be interested in exchanging my laptop stand for the newer model in order to prevent further blood loss. You may have the old model; I would use it for slicing vegetables but as my skin seems to clog the fan blade I doubt it would be much good at carrots.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
Lindsay

AUBURN – For the annual survey, “America’s Best Architecture & Design Schools 2012,” DesignIntelligence magazine has ranked Auburn University‘s undergraduate Interior Design program in the College of Human Sciences as best in the nation and Industrial Design and Architecture programs in the College of Architecture, Design and Construction in the nation’s top 20 degree programs in their fields. [Read more]

For more information on Auburn’s CIDA-accredited Interior Design program in the College of Human Sciences, go to http://humsci.auburn.edu/cahs/bs-inds.php.

For more information about the Industrial Design program in the Department of Industrial and Graphic Design, go to http://cadc.auburn.edu/DIGD/Pages/default.aspx.

For more information about the Architecture program in the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture, go to http://cadc.auburn.edu/apla/Pages/default.aspx.

Auburn University’s Interior Design, Industrial Design and Architecture programs ranked among nation’s best by DesignIntelligence

AUBURN – For the annual survey, “America’s Best Architecture & Design Schools 2012,” DesignIntelligence magazine has ranked Auburn University’s undergraduate Interior Design program in the College of Human Sciences as best in the nation and Industrial Design and Architecture programs in the College of Architecture, Design and Construction in the nation’s top 20 degree programs in their fields.

Based on interior design programs accredited by the Council for Interior Design Accreditation, Auburn was ranked number one in the nation along with Savannah College of Art and Design.

“Being ranked number one is a testament to the efforts that both faculty and students have made to ensure that our graduates are indeed prepared for the professional world,” said Carol Warfield, head of the Department of Consumer Affairs.

Auburn’s Interior Design program is offered through Consumer Affairs in the College of Human Sciences. The program’s previous best ranking was in 2008 when it was ranked fourth. It was ranked third nationally for cross-disciplinary teamwork in this year’s survey, which cited the growing importance of collaboration and communication in design education. The program’s graduates consistently earn placement with the top 100 architecture and design firms each year.

“We are pleased to be recognized as one of many excellent design programs offered here at Auburn,” said June Henton, dean of the College of Human Sciences.

The components of the College of Architecture, Design and Construction are annually regarded and ranked among the best in their respective disciplines nationally for the quality of education and quality of students. Nationally, Auburn’s Industrial Design program was ranked ninth best and its Architecture program 14th best.

Vini Nathan, dean of the College of Architecture, Design and Construction, said, “I am delighted that the recent rankings from DesignIntelligence confirm the academic rigor and professional relevance of the design programs in the CADC. The extremely strong reputation of our architecture, interior architecture and industrial design programs is testimony to the convergence of bright students, dedicated faculty and staff and supportive alumni, advisory board and industry partners.”

Also recognized for excellence in the survey was Rod Barnett, associate professor and Chair of the Graduate Program in Landscape Architecture in Auburn’s School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture, who was named one of the 25 Most Admired Educators of the Year.

The Industrial Design undergraduate program, in the Department of Industrial and Graphic Design, has been ranked in the top 10 industrial design programs for six consecutive years. Hiring firms ranked the department’s program as number five in communication and cross-disciplinary teamwork and number four in computer applications. Founded in 1945, Auburn’s Department of Industrial and Graphic Design is one of the country’s first industrial design programs accredited by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design.

The undergraduate Architecture program, in the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture, was up four in the rankings from last year, and marked its seventh consecutive year in the nation’s top 20 architecture programs. It was ranked fifth in sustainable design practices and principles. The curriculum in architecture was established in 1907, making Auburn one of the first universities in the nation, and the first in the South, to offer architecture as a major.

Barnett was honored in a category that recognizes role models of excellence in education and education administration. He was cited by DesignIntelligence as having extensive experience in the development of landscape architecture degree programs and curricula and as having taught design studio at all levels, as well as history and cultural landscape courses and seminars.

The annual rankings by DesignIntelligence for architecture, industrial design, landscape architecture and interior design programs are based on input from the nation’s architecture, design and engineering employers, as well as deans and chairs of design programs.

For more information on Auburn’s CIDA-accredited Interior Design program in the College of Human Sciences, go to http://humsci.auburn.edu/cahs/bs-inds.php.

For more information about the Industrial Design program in the Department of Industrial and Graphic Design, go to http://cadc.auburn.edu/DIGD/Pages/default.aspx.

For more information about the Architecture program in the School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture, go to http://cadc.auburn.edu/apla/Pages/default.aspx.

Contact: Harriet Giles, College of Human Sciences, (334) 844-3241 (gileshw@auburn.edu),
Stephanie Bond, College of Architecture, Design and Construction, (334) 844-4590 (bondste@auburn.edu), or
Mike Clardy, Office of Communications and Marketing, (334) 844-9999 (clardch@auburn.edu)

Learning that ping.fm may just save you all from reading my accidentally infinite x-posts caused by looped propagation (aka piiiiiiiiiiiing). This is only a test.

That was the sound of yet another attempt by yours truly to tame the raging tsunami of my social media life. Dilemma: How to control the following outlets for one organization, while allowing multiple authors to post on behalf of that org? Help me propagate to:

• Twitter
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr
• Flickr
• and maybe Yahoo! Groups, but only under duress

Thoughts? Ideas? Maybe you can teach me how to become a power-user of Ping.fm?

LinTan needs a dog-sitter for September 16, 17, 18 (Friday, Saturday, Sunday). Pay is $15 per day / $45 total. Email or Facebook me, or comment below, if you’re interested in dog sitting for us.

When and how is CAD best used in the design process? Let’s consider  a couple of student-centered scenarios through the lens of design technologies.

Scenario 1: Pre-Design Research and Programming

Say I assign a new commercial design project to my second year interior design students and ask them to demonstrate evidence of their precedent studies, fleshed out program, analysis of the existing space, criteria matrix, and adjacency matrix by next week. How could computer-based tools best be implemented?

First consider precedent studies, for which most of my students will begin by googling the topic.

How some teachers view Internet research

Wikipedia and Google images are not the best sources of scholarly information, but that doesn’t mean we should write off all digital resources as a waste of time. In fact, much of the students’ precedent research can be completed online through the University library website and other reputable online sources. In order to facilitate their success we should probably spend a class period with a trained University librarian who can explain online resources and help them to locate – and assess the legitimacy of – information related to their topics. I can also provide the project description and program as a digital document that can be edited and fleshed out as they do their precedent studies.

Is there any limit to what I think can be done through computer-based tools? Yes, there is. I do have some concern regarding the analysis of space because this requires a certain degree of hand-eye coordination to trigger intuitive design drawing. The increased availability and accessibility of tablet computers (e.g. apple ipad, blackberry playbook, samsung galaxy tab 10.1), as well as the incredibly sexy Wacom Cintiq, has made it possible for some artists and designers to completely replace traditional drawing with digital drawing. Notice I say it’s possible for some. For the rest of us, because of cost or preference, doodle diagrams will continue to be an analog method for a while longer.

The pre-design research scenario demonstrates how a digital-traditional hybrid method can be successfully applied. For a fully digital deliverable, the student can scan spatial analyses to add to the digital research; for a fully print deliverable, the student can print the digital research to turn in with hand sketches. If it fits the project schedule you could also have students summarize the pre-design research and programming in a simplified deliverable, like an 11″x17″ sheet (print or digital).

Scenario 2: Schematic Design Phase

True story.

Now let’s look at the schematic design phase of a third year residential interior design project and consider how computer-based tools could best be implemented. In the schematic design phase we’re doing basic space planning, making preliminary design decisions, generally translating the design program into designed space.

Specifications and Cut Sheets

My students actually introduced me to this one. Old dog <– new tricks. Tools like Specify let designers create spec books and cut sheets quickly and easily. In studio we use the time saved to more fully explore their material and ff&e options and give critical feedback on their preliminary choices. Sure, they don’t individually copy and paste each piece of information into a word document template but I don’t think they’re missing out on anything educational.

Study Model
I’m of two minds about the digitization of a study model. I, for one, find physical study models incredibly helpful for visualizing the shell of a building. However, I have allowed students to experiment with digital alternatives. Hand drawn or digital plan obliques and digital models (Revit, AutoCAD 3D, SketchUp) can be substituted for a study model when the learning outcome of a study model is intended to be a better understanding of the space – such as its scale and architectural character. However, if the craftsmanship and construction process are important learning outcomes then I do not recommend digitizing this part of the project.

Conclusion: The Traditional-Digital Hybrid Workflow

Know your process. Know how you think and how you work most effectively.

“The real issue is not talent as an independent element, but talent in relationship to will, desire, and persistence. Talent without these things vanishes and even modest talent with those characteristics grows.” – Milton Glaser

There are many possible ways to insert digital technologies into your design process but first you must understand your process well enough to know when it’s going south. Sure, every new tool is going to have a learning curve. Sure, the more complex the tool the more challenging the curve. But if you pay attention to how your mind and your drawing hand(s) respond to the tool you can tell when something is working and when it’s not.

For example, if I pick up a ball point pen or a 4H drawing pencil I can feel my hand-eye coordination start to fail. My thoughts come slower and there’s a low level of frustration humming in the back of my mind. Take a moment to ask yourself if you have had an experience like this. What was the tool? Why do you think it didn’t work for you?

Retail display sketches in ink and colored pencil (schematic)

And consider this: Some designers prefer to work from the macrocosm (big picture) to the microcosm (details) of a project. Others begin with a strong concept that guides every design decision. Personally, I am most creative – and ultimately successful – when I bounce back and forth between the big picture and concrete details. During the early stages my big picture is almost philosophical, some might even say impractical, but it is the theory that guides my design decisions. On the other hand I am grounding that theory in action through sketches, vignettes, and diagrams that explore specific portions of the larger design whole.

Exterior concept

Interior detail concept

The development of Glowbug 2.0 was completely digital, from the big picture right down to the details. For me, it worked because the design began with known parameters – a shipping container – and every inch / millimeter counted. The images above are from the schematic phase, developed in SketchUp.

Now take some time – you may want to write this down – to consider your own design process. Do you begin with the big picture or an inspiring detail? Are you a linear thinker – point A to point B – or do you jump between ideas seemingly randomly? Where in your personal design process is it most logical to begin experimenting with digital technologies? If you are a teacher, how can you create low-risk scenarios in which your students can experiment with digital workflows?

Work in progress: digital ink and traditional colored pencil

I have spent the last five years being disappointed with most of the hand-to-digital textbooks I’ve come across. (Apologies to my friends in publishing). As a result I’ve begun to develop my own traditional-digital hybrid workflow.

That is not to say that I haven’t found a few good books along the way. I recommend the following to those who are interested in developing a strong traditional-digital hybrid workflow for their own design work:

• The DC Comics Guide to Digitally Drawing Comics
• 100% Photoshop
• Hobbyist: tablet computer with stylus
• Future Pro: Cintiq tablet
• Adobe Photoshop or Gimp

In adopting too quickly any new tool we disrupt our creative and productive workflow. Our profession has adopted – relatively quickly – these new tools and we have not yet reached the apex of our collective learning curve. That is the hidden cost of CAD.

It is imperative that the informed designer (or design educator) understand that CAD is only one of many tools available for design communication and can not yet replace all the traditional methods at our disposal. In other words, we talking monkeys still benefit from the intuitive hand-eye coordination of good old-fashioned ink and papyrus (and their descendants in all analog forms).

The talking monkeys will evolve, just as we have with the transition from carriages to cars, and typewriters to keyboards. The relatively sudden boom in digital design technologies has resulted in a schism between the technophiles and the Luddites, yes, but given time, patience, and prudent application we will eventually adapt and find equilibrium. In the meantime, I am leaning toward the future. Cautiously optimistic. Proactive in self-education. Adaptable. Where will you choose to go from here?

As an environmental symbologist I am interested in the symbolic aspects of human-computer interactions, in particular design-related applications of virtual and augmented reality technologies. See my most recent augmented reality project: PowerCat Enhanced

Let’s take another approach. If we consider what humans create to be artificial then is a manicured lawn no longer natural? What is a human-made trail through a nature preserve?

An environmental symbologist explores the symbolic significance of the human environment, both built and natural. Pictured here is Hanauma Bay, Oahu, a place set aside as a natural place for humans to visit and explore. What is the meaning of this place to Hawaii? What is the concept of natural to natives, locals, and visitors? Consider how the perspective of an environmental symbologist can serve the preservation of natural spaces.

The progress of design technology

“To design is to communicate clearly by whatever means you can control or master.” – Milton Glaser

CAD, or computer-aided design, can today refer to a wide variety of software and hardware tools. This corner of the technology market is dominated by Autodesk and Adobe, with strong contributions by McNeel, Google, Wacom, Graphisoft, and Bentley Systems, among others. In the interior design and architectural professions CAD has become a standard of the designer’s tool belt alongside longstanding favorites like the t-square, architectural scale, and drafting pencil. In education, traditional curricula have had to make room in their already full agendas for courses in 2D vector-based drafting, 3D solid and surface modeling, digital layouts, construction documents, and computer rendering. The relatively sudden shift in the academic knowledge base has resulted in a schism between the technophiles and the Luddites, with the rest of us being pulled along for the ride.

Proponents of all things CAD laud its time-saving features, ease of use, capacity for collaboration, and – most recently – its union of design drawings with design information. (We’re talking about Revit, here.) On the flip side, opponents have raised some serious concerns about CAD, not the least of which include:

CAD can’t do (x), where x stands for organic curves, custom cabinetry, straw bale walls, etc. Designers have developed, over time, a slew of design communication tools – orthographic drawings, perspectives, sketches, plan obliques, models, prototypes, etc. – that aid in the design process. CAD software is capable of communicating only a small portion of the design ideas that can be communicated using this wide variety of tools. And yet too many designers, and design students, have replaced all other design tools with this one, limited technology. It is imperative that the informed designer (or design educator) understand that CAD is only one of many tools available for design communication and can not yet replace all the traditional methods at our disposal. For example, Revit is hailed by some as the future of design. Revit drawings are information-rich and can be collaboratively  developed by the entire design team. However, Revit designs are generally limited by the software’s library of components and its presumption that all designs are derived from regular, grid-based units of space. It is my hope that software like Revit will some day allow designers to work organically and collaboratively together on intelligent drawings that can help us to anticipate problems before they are built in but it is simply not there yet.

CAD makes designers stupid. This is especially a concern of design educators, and so I’m going to jump right onto my educator soap box and discuss the implications of instant-gratification design. It is vital that educators make a clear distinction for students that producing a drawing of space is not the same thing as designing a space. On one front, this requires that we hold students accountable for the design process. By design process I mean an iterative process derived from many rounds of analysis and synthesis, trial and error, output and feedback. On the other front, we must hold ourselves accountable for knowing the technology. It is far too often that I hear my colleagues tell me they don’t know how to evaluate the quality of a CAD drawing, or computer rendered space. Perhaps we should simply remove the technology from the equation; evaluate CAD work using the same standards with which we would evaluate traditional work. Which returns us to the first issue, CAD can’t do (x). There can be absolutely no room for the excuse “the computer did that” or “the computer couldn’t do that” or even “it was easier to make it this way on the computer”. If “the computer” can’t create a representation of what you have designed then the computer is not the right tool for the job. By becoming more familiar with design technologies we will feel more confident taking someone to task for hiding behind that technology.

And, lastly, CAD will never compare to good old (x), where x stands for pencil and vellum, pen and paper, ink and papyrus, or name your favorite tool of the trade. We are transitioning from a world of pencil and paper to a digital world, there’s no doubt about that. It’s taking longer than some of us predicted but then again so is the adoption of the metric system. (Get with it, U.S.) Those of us who were trained in traditional media may find it a leap to learn the new digital methods, but we’re turning out a generation of new designers who are ambidextrous. These traditional/digital natives, like second generation immigrants, will speak CAD much more intuitively than we ever can. And we, the lead designers and design educators, are tasked with fitting them with the knowledge and skills to use it wisely. We must abandon the mindset that CAD is inherently substandard to other design tools, or inherently better. We do ourselves a far better service by making informed choices about when and how CAD is best used in the design process.

When and how is CAD best used in the design process? I will offer some suggestions in the conclusion of this discussion, The Hidden Costs of CAD (part 3 of 3). In the meantime I invite you to join in by posting in the comments, below.