Week 2: From vision to practice,
Design for the value of Presence (Nevejan C., Brazier F.M., 2014)
The writers are dealing with the value of presence in a design process by merging realities in social and design science. Designing for the presence of value is not designing for a specific behavior but for the choice of behavior and sensations or the creation of a new behavior experience but also for the experience (previous habits and behaviors, current and previous contexts). It is a meta-design; it is the design for choices and trade-offs.
The term presence as a fuzzy concept is divided in three types: the physical/natural presence, the virtual one but also the mediating presence (mediation by technology).
Furthermore, there are five notions related to the presence design.
3. merging realities because the being-here and being-there are presented as one interface and finally are merging together
4. co-presence, social presence and witnessed presence, where people’s presence influence the individual behavior
5. as the main definition of presence is the strive towards well-being and survival (Antonio Damasio - Giuseppe Riva, John & Eva Waterworth). This aspect has a neurobiological perspective of presence and it has to deal with merging realities, sensations, emotions and feelings that direct us to the well-being and survival.
There are three different ways where that value of presence is important to the (meta)-design. These are the design requirement, the factor of analysis and the key value in the process of the design.
During the presence of (meta)design, important aspects are the choices and the trade-offs (Wijnand IJsselsteijn) according to the requirements but also the design for trust. Nevejan (2007) creates the YUTPA framework in which 4 dimensions (relation, time, place and action), which are divided in four factors each and are defined by number from 0-10 trying to show the degree of trust and to make choices and trade-offs in different presence configurations. From YUTPA, it is easy to understand the basic aim of each project and to point out the dimensions or factors that must or can be enhanced or improved. The writers, in order to explain the YUTPA frameworks, present three examples one of each different way. Although, a framework may present lack of one, two or three dimensions or even some factors but the other have peak points, that’s not translated into inefficient or unsuccessful design.
The final aim of the presence as a value for design is to inform the future generation to design and create a better environment to live in with all the social, technological and ecological advantages.
From now on, in Texel case the focus is given to the value in a process of design, as there is not a specific design yet in order to define solutions. Each sub-sustem in Texel design, according to its requirements and who is in the middle of the research / circle (local, tourist etc) will define a different YUTPA frameform, which it will show the degree of trust.
Nevejan C., Brazier F.M., 2014. Presence as Value for Design. In Handbook of Ethics, Values and Technological Design, Van den Hoven, J., I. van de Poel and P.E. Vermaas (eds.). Springer Dordrecht (NL)