Although empathy is an essential aspect of co-design, the design community lacks a systematic overview of the key dimensions and elements that foster empathy in design. This paper introduces an empathic formation compass, based on a comparison of existing relevant frameworks. Empathic formation is defined here as the formative process of becoming an empathic design professional who knows which attitude, skills and knowledge are applicable in a co-design process. The empathic formation compass provides designers with a vocabulary that helps them understand what kind of key dimensions and elements influence empathic formation in co-design and how that informs designers’ role and design decisions. In addition, the empathic formation compass aims to support reflection and to evaluate co-design projects beyond the mere reliance on methods. In this way, empathic design can be made into a conscious activity in which designers regulate and include their own feelings and experiences (first-person perspective), and decrease empathic bias. We identify four important intersecting dimensions that empathy is comprised of in design and describe their dynamic relations. The first two opposing dimensions are denoted by empathy and differentiate between cognitive design processes and affective design experiences, and between self-and other orientation. The other two dimensions are defined by design research and differentiate between an expert and a participatory mindset, and research-and design-led techniques. The empathic formation compass strengthens and enriches our earlier work on mixed perspectives with these specific dimensions and describes the factors that foster empathy in design from a more contextual position. We expect the empathic formation compass—combined with the mixed perspectives framework—to enhance future research by bringing about a deeper understanding of designers’ empathic and collaborative design practice.
With summaries in Dutch, Esperanto and English. DOI: 10.4233/uuid:d7132920-346e-47c6-b754-00dc5672b437 "The subject of this study is deformation analysis of the earth's surface (or part of it) and spatial objects on, above or below it. Such analyses are needed in many domains of society. Geodetic deformation analysis uses various types of geodetic measurements to substantiate statements about changes in geometric positions.Professional practice, e.g. in the Netherlands, regularly applies methods for geodetic deformation analysis that have shortcomings, e.g. because the methods apply substandard analysis models or defective testing methods. These shortcomings hamper communication about the results of deformation analyses with the various parties involved. To improve communication solid analysis models and a common language have to be used, which requires standardisation.Operational demands for geodetic deformation analysis are the reason to formulate in this study seven characteristic elements that a solid analysis model needs to possess. Such a model can handle time series of several epochs. It analyses only size and form, not position and orientation of the reference system; and datum points may be under influence of deformation. The geodetic and physical models are combined in one adjustment model. Full use is made of available stochastic information. Statistical testing and computation of minimal detectable deformations is incorporated. Solution methods can handle rank deficient matrices (both model matrix and cofactor matrix). And, finally, a search for the best hypothesis/model is implemented. Because a geodetic deformation analysis model with all seven elements does not exist, this study develops such a model.For effective standardisation geodetic deformation analysis models need: practical key performance indicators; a clear procedure for using the model; and the possibility to graphically visualise the estimated deformations."
This investigation explores relations between 1) a theory of human cognition, called Embodied Cognition, 2) the design of interactive systems and 3) the practice of ‘creative group meetings’ (of which the so-called ‘brainstorm’ is perhaps the best-known example). The investigation is one of Research-through-Design (Overbeeke et al., 2006). This means that, together with students and external stakeholders, I designed two interactive prototypes. Both systems contain a ‘mix’ of both physical and digital forms. Both are designed to be tools in creative meeting sessions, or brainstorms. The tools are meant to form a natural, element in the physical meeting space. The function of these devices is to support the formation of shared insight: that is, the tools should support the process by which participants together, during the activity, get a better grip on the design challenge that they are faced with. Over a series of iterations I reflected on the design process and outcome, and investigated how users interacted with the prototypes.
