https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=Zu2ayvcAAAAJ&hl=en
1.
In the discussion about solutionism, the authors acknowledge opposition to solutionism while criticising works that completely disregard solutions/practicality. The question arises whether the problem-solving mindset needs to be avoided entirely. Previous practices have seen pitfalls in overly pursuing problem-solving, and the improvement of solutionism involved replacing the term ‘solution’ with ‘exploration.’
However, based on the author’s discussion, it becomes clear that exploration alone is insufficient in design. I personally align with this viewpoint. Furthermore, solutions and exploration are not opposing concepts; what the author seems to seek is the possibility of seeking change within exploration. However, I believe that finding a better balance may require a sense of urgency for mass participation rather than just theoretical discussions. After all, only those who truly understand military strategy will empathize with theoretical discussions, but design practices primarily target the general public. Therefore, it may be crucial to introduce the term ‘intervention’ and think from the perspective of intervention in design to significantly reduce the risk of purely conceptual or impractical pitfalls. Thus, participatory practices become critically important.
In my previous learning experiences, I have fully integrated participatory approaches into practice. However, for designers who have traditionally leaned toward art or academia, this might be a challenge. Additionally, some argue that the current educational environment overly favors purely conceptual works. Perhaps such works are more likely to stimulate the desire for discussion among a professional audience. Still, they often mark the end of many projects, followed by self-indulgence.
However, the author’s discussion neglects the consideration of the audience and context. Who the work is intended for is important regardless of the audience. The key is to appropriately guide the audience to think, whether through discussion or active participation, after presenting satirical works. This benefits both the content and presentation of the design.
The author frequently references the ‘magic machine’ case as a typical fusion of satirical and participatory narratives, contributing to broader discussions about designs that disconnect from the public. However, hastily adding interruptions or creating other content in works that are primarily satirical and representational might lead to narrative disruptions, potentially resulting in a subpar audience experience. Therefore, the necessity of inducing participation and discussion, as well as how to induce them, is a topic deserving further exploration.
2.
The transition from speculative design to design fiction represents a shift from practice to strategy. Speculative design is responsible for the development of models (narrative prototypes) and the rationality of details, while design fiction takes this concept and places it within a narrative, allowing people to vividly imagine how the product will be used in the future and how it will impact humanity. Many case analyses use minority reports, which are quite typical. I believe another exemplary case is Doraemon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doraemon_(character)
This relationship, as I understand it, can be illustrated with business cases. It is similar to designing products/IP and constructing in-depth narratives about products/IP within a business environment. Therefore, design fiction fundamentally serves as an extension of audience thinking and possibilities, while its strategic significance lies in guiding this thinking and extension. Thus, the combination of speculative design and design fiction represents a complete presentation of a project since their ultimate goal is to stimulate discussion and provoke thought.
3.
As for the criteria for evaluating design fiction, according to the author’s expression, there is no overarching standard because different industries have different needs. For instance, in the entertainment industry, the standard may be to captivate the audience, while in the realm of public relations, the goal may be to serve and manage reputation. In the context of human-computer interaction/thought experiments, the objective should be to generate insights into societal issues. However, I believe there is an inherent commonality that the author did not explicitly summarize, though it undoubtedly exists. Nevertheless, the significance of summarizing this commonality might be rather abstract. Therefore, I’ve been contemplating whether evaluating design fiction itself holds great importance in the current environment.
From my perspective, I aim for my project to constitute a complete narrative and foster continuous reflection. I consider it a thought experiment that strives to achieve what is sought after in both entertainment and corporate strategy. From a narrative perspective, in-depth storytelling can create a profound and lasting impact. Even very personalized and extreme forms of in-depth storytelling require a long-term, sustainable process of absorption and digestion. Thus, forming in-depth narratives can be considered a shared pursuit across all scenarios of design fiction. However, what I aspire to is not merely extreme depth in storytelling, but rather a depth that remains open to discussion throughout the entire journey. Therefore, open discussion is one of the significant distinctions between academic (tentative) and commercial design fiction. However, this concept still needs to be adapted to my specific design project. I have included the evaluation phase in the objectives of my project, so the specifics of how to evaluate will be a subject for further research in the future.
In conclusion, while it is correct to say that different industries require different standards, I believe that this conclusion, although valid, may not drive substantial progress in the field, leaving room for extensive discussions. Advancing academic research may indeed be a lengthy process.