Assignment | Historical Perspective of Design

I’ve felt a shift in my lifetime, and I could be reflecting on personal growth and a shift in my own perspective, but I also wonder if there is a larger trend of thinking more about accessibility (in design thinking?) with the emergence of digital technologies.

Nearly all of my peers (Buddhist ministers in the Buddhist churches of America) are at least one generation older than me, and they’ve had to adjust to a lot of what I tend to think of as mainstream digital technologies during their adulthood. As a millennial, I had access to the internet at the start of my teens. I grew into adulthood with MySpace and flip cell phones. While digital technology is very different from the early-mid 2000’s now, I think that many of my minister peers think that digital technology automatically makes information more accessible. That seems to be one of the main aspects of design in digital technology: allow the maximum amount of information available to the maximum amount of people. In spite of that facet, many people have incorporated disability justice into design thinking for digital technologies like social media, news networks, etc.

I’m not sure I’m 100% clear on what a “non-tangible object” is. As far as I know, once something becomes an object it is tangible, if by no other means than at least by the imagination. It seems like this focus of imagination and how we dream and distill those images, ideas, abstract designs into the physical world.

We have capitalists who could be engaging in some form of “human-centered” design by satisfying the consumerist tendency to always be trendy with technology, clothes, and many other things, however, there are also deceptive practices of planned obsolescence in major phone companies (esp. Apple, but they're all guilty) and poor quality materials, which include clothing, digital tech, car, and so many other areas. These couple examples lead to increased extraction of materials and increased waste in products that can create hazardous environmental conditions & take incredible amounts of time to break down. I often see Congolese children buried in mine cave-ins, only paid pennies per day, on my smart phone, and events like these are a direct result of the aforementioned predatory behaviors alongside humanity's greedy consciousness.

AI is another seemingly intangible technology that is wreaking havoc on the world with its environmental impacts on water-use, CO2 emissions to name a few and human impacts on regional energy prices for consumers as well as the physical nuisance of data-centers and the historically marginalized communities they disproportionately affect due to inequitable building policies. The adverse impacts of AI also invade the dream/creative space, and while we have ideas about how these impacts are playing out, it is difficult to predict how far they will go, especially with its use being popularly treated as a fun novelty, rather than a driver of social inequality, warfare, and anthropogenic climate change.

To counter some of these frightening trends, we also see many people turning to nature, especially to land-based practices of indigenous peoples as a more holistic and ethical (perhaps ironically) “human-centered” approach to design that mimics systems already found in nature. An easy example comes from brown’s practice of learning from the fiddle-head fern and her other creative expressions around temporality & emotions in this week’s readings. My sense is that this return to nature is being incorporated a lot more in mainstream design thinking for social change, which I suppose is an example of “non-tangible objects.” Maybe this shift toward looking to the natural world—which is not new, just becoming more acceptable as mainstream—is an important part of the shift in consciousness in design thinking since the emergence of digital technologies?

Lucretia Durden

Assignment 2

Reflective Question

Historical Perspective

I was born in the 60's and there has been so much change in digital technologies and it has opened so many new doors to design disciplines such as social media,AI, VR and many others. I grew up in a time when we had to look up words in the dictionary, find someone in the yellow pages, and had a phone with a rotary dial.

We played outside until the street lights came on. We made up games like tag and hop-scotch, climbed trees and caught salamanders in the creek behind the house.

Today what I'm seeing especially with the new age is everything is so rapid. So called microwave cultured.

Everyone's on social media trying to keep up with the Influencers. Assignments are being done by AI. You can google everything it's right at your fingertips now.

I feel we need to get back to how filldleheads thought and lived with the aspect of doing things in a natural way, getting back to nature and the simplicity of grounding ourselves, resetting, making a plan, possessing it and putting it into motion, and if it failed then we reset and try over and over until we learn from the mistakes.

Some of this technology today sometimes keeps us from critical and design thinking , because some of us feel we don't have the time in this chaotic world for deep thinking.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding the assignments correctly but I have been trying to reach out to my cohort but unfortunately the ones I was able to reach didn't have info for me, hopefully going forward I'll be able to get the understanding I need to pass this course. I'm new to this leadership role and need all the clarity I need to be able to move forward.

Deborah Anderson

The emergence of digital technologies has opened a new world of design that goes far beyond the physical. When I think about design now, I no longer picture only fabric, thread, and form, but also relationships, experiences and connections that are just as carefully woven.

Design has evolved dramatically over the past century. In the early days it was viewed as craft and applied art, focused on beauty and utility. With industrialization, it became more technical and efficiency driven. In the 1960s, the Design Research Society in England began framing design as a field of inquiry, igniting the Design Methods Movement. By the 1970’s and 1980’s, thinkers like Bruce Archer helped establish design as its own discipline—separate from both science and art. Christopher Alexander’s Pattern Language reframed design as creating patterns that sustain life and community, while Timothy Taylor and others emphasized design as a reflective and social process. Together, they moved design from making things to cultivating meaning.

Today, digital technologies have given rise to non-tangible design disciplines like user experience, service, and systems design to the human realm of relationship, safety, trust, and emotion. In Emergent Strategy, Adrienne Maree Brown helps me understand this shift. In Chapters 6 and 7, she describes how transformation is nonlinear and iterative, and how resilience means not just bouncing back, but becoming something new. Digital design lives in that same rhythm—it is never finished, always evolving through feedback, failure, and adaptation. Brown’s suggests that to create a better world, we design with humility, curiosity, and trust in the process rather than clinging to perfection.

For me, this also feels spiritual. In both ministry and digital design, the work is about creating conditions for growth and belonging—designing spaces where transformation can emerge. Just as Brown describes resilient systems learning to heal and adapt, digital design invites us to build tools and communities that help us heal, connect, and co-create the world we long for. It’s a new kind of weaving—one that happens across networks of both heart and technology.

This new design consciousness asks us to design not only for efficiency or beauty, but for human flourishing. Digital technologies have revealed that the most powerful designs are not things at all, but systems of care, belonging, and justice. When design becomes a way of healing and reimagining how we live together, it moves from the mechanical to the moral—from creating products to cultivating possibility.

Now, and thankfully, design disciplines focus on the “invisible” objects that shape human life—trust, accessibility, empathy, and justice. This feels deeply resonant to me as both an artist and a pastor. Ministry, too, designs experiences that are invisible but deeply real: moments of belonging, healing, and transformation. Design, as Professor Goldberg stated, is visionary thinking, leads from our values and is a service done out of love. I now see that design goes to the human need, all humans. This is where change begins. 

Leonard Bailey

10/9/25

Reflective Question - Historical Perspective

Digital technologies have absolutely changed the game when it comes to design. We’re no longer just creating physical “stuff”—we are designing apps, websites, experiences, systems, even things like how a particular service feels. None of these things are tangible, as you can’t touch them, but they’re just as real and important.

This shift shows how design is becoming more about people—how we move, feel, think, and interact. It has become less about making a “thing” and more about creating experiences that work for real lives. Overall, its apparent that design is becoming more flexible, more human, and way more connected to everyday life.

Amanda Weaver

Design Thinking for Social Change

Lesson 2: Historical Perspective

10/10/25

Digital technologies have opened a whole new world for design. Prior to the digital age, design was primarily focused on the creation of tangible objects. How people interacted with those objects was not a focus. The popularity of personal injury lawsuits led to warning labels and robust instructions, but there was often not a lot of thought given to the postproduction interaction beyond reducing liability.

When digital technologies came around, designers began to realize that what they designed was more than just the actual tangible tech (wires, chips, screens, etc.). They also controlled how people interacted with the object. User interfaces do more than just allow people to use the object; they can drive user behavior. As tech continued to change, whole intangible systems began to be designed. People no longer need to own as many physical objects; own one computer, tablet, or smartphone, and you can license multiple systems to make use of the device and interact with the world. Everything from the work we do to the ways we relax have been and continue to be changed.

This shift in focus from tangible, use as you will, objects, to intangible systems and interfaces has driven shifts in consciousness. For some, the focus has been on reinforcing existing capitalistic structures. This focus has driven the rise of subscription-based services to include everything from streaming entertainment to being able to use the heated seats in some car brands. It has also shifted purchasing away from owning electronic copies of media to purchasing licenses to use said media. As that media is not truly owned by the end user, it can be changed without warning and access can be restricted or denied.

On the other side of the coin, there has been a shift in consciousness towards designing more intentionally and inclusively. Human centered design is thinking beyond the object to the people who will use the object, and it results in better design that requires less modification after the fact. In the current social and political climate, this human centered focus often seems to be a distant second to design that reinforces capitalism, but the voices behind it are constant. While the push for human centered design thinking still seems like a struggle, I find it encouraging that the struggle is continuing.

How has the emergence of digital technologies opened the doors to many new design disciplines concerned with non-tangible objects, and what does this say about the shift in design consciousness it is bringing about?

The emergence of digital technologies has opened the door to many new design disciplines by transforming our relationship with time and space. For instance, the speed with which we can receive communications through various mediums (textual, auditory, visual). Even the ability to schedule these communications (the teacher can sleep while students at different points on the globe watch synchronously, and while the assignments that they submit are graded automatically by an artificial intelligence).

The shift to the non-tangible is a definite expansion in design consciousness because it makes the point clearly that design is something that goes beyond the tactile, it highlights that whether in our hands, in our heads, or on our screens, design is essential. Amazingly, the non-tangible objects of design may be even more complex and require more care because so much of the experiences of the design is unseen. It is one thing to design a ball and see how it feels in one's hand and how the body reacts to it. There is a viscerality here. But, how does the design of a digital product impact the mind? How can we easily measure or account for how the design impacts the mind, and mental and spiritual health when so much of the impact and experience of the design is unseen? Design consciousness, awareness, and sensibilities are more important than ever.

How has the emergence of digital technologies opened the doors to many new design disciplines concerned with new tangible objects. And what does this say about the shift in design consciousness it is bringing about?

Digital technologies created entirely new design disciplines and design careers that previously did not exist. Role such as UX designers, Interaction designers, Service designers and Information architects. They design how individuals navigate routes through digital space or digital products that didn’t exist before in the creation of non-tangible and tangible objects. The tangible objects are products that would not exist without technology. Items such as smart watches, fitness accessories (Oura ring or Fitbit) as well as self-driving cars such as Waymo and entertainment accessories like VR headsets or the Ray-Ban meta glasses.

This is where the shift in design consciousness occurs. Design shifted towards to dynamic systems. A chair is designed for the problem of sitting. But social media apps like Instagram or TikTok don't solve one problem. It creates a connection between me and the content. Between me and other people. Or a smart scale which creates a relationship with my body data and behavior patterns. Both systems are tracking and learning me, the product, and adjust the feedback based on my level of engagement.

As a user, I’ve also realized digital technologies design has manipulation embedded in it. And that manipulation serves creators enormously more than it serves consumers. For example, I Googled this thought and came across data that researchers have “documented 68 distinct dark patterns aka deceptive design”. They are design elements built deliberately to direct user behavior in ways that are profitable for service providers to the detriment of users.

Historical design imposed function and digital design optimizes interaction.

I think the primary way that the emergence of digital technology has impacted design disciplines is in the marriage of form with function. In order to have an advantage in the market, digital design companies are required to pay attention to the user experience. The greater the satisfaction of the customer, the greater the sustainability of the product,  and  the greater profit to be had. The non-tangible products of the industry primarily focus on the dissemination of information and entertainment with the intent to facilitate consumerism. In order to do this innovators within the industry have to understand the way the minds of the consumer work and therefore, must consider the needs and desires of the people who the products are intended for. 

Design theory for social change is influenced by that same practice of understanding the needs of the people the service is intended for. However, the ethic, or intent, is significantly different than that of the digital industry. Rather than developing a product that is marketable and profitable, the focus is on developing a process that is not only sustainable, but benefits the entire community. The practice of theory in social change must include time spent in hearing from diverse voices and collaborating with those for which the “product” is intended and  out of an ethos of love and service, rather than an ethos of personal profit.

Digital technologies huge new array of things that need to be designed, that hadn’t existed before. Digital technologies have brought about a shift in design consciousness from product and aesthetic – from a focus on art or science, to a foundation in the human experience.

These include the disciplines of user experience and service design, software, games, etc. We are in relatively early days of these disciplines. They are accessible to so many and adaptable. So their design can be in the service of the greater good or can also great harm.

The design of social media, for example, algorithmically oriented and funneling people into silos and manipulating them. It’s definitely intentionally designed, and it’s definitely social design. But its social benefit to the people or community is sometimes questionable. It seems mostly to be designed to benefit corporations and the bottom line.

The question I guess is how can we harness the digital technologies for good? There are digital technologies that are deigned or can be designed to enhance positive social change. Zoom platforms, for example, can bring people together who might not otherwise be able to connect. That is a designed experience for community. There are also messaging apps that allow people to communicate with each other in dangerous situations, under repressive governments or in volatile situations, that are designed to circumvent surveillance. I wonder about how things that are designed with communities in mind, for positive social good or change—social, sexual and racial justice for example—might be coopted for more deleterious purposes. And perhaps how the opposite might happen, how we might repurpose an algorithmically-oriented technology for the greater good.

Rona Lomax

Historical Perspective in Context

The shift in design consciousness through the lens of digital technology shows up in our everyday lives. The very idea that we can take college courses on-line and interact with our instructors and fellow students all over the world is one way. What I love about this, so much of digital technology leaves out human interaction, but these courses are quite the opposite. Affording those that might not have the time or accessibility to in-person classes the opportunity to achieve the same goals as students on campus, is most certainly a human centered design discipline. Zoom and other apps have made it possible for us to connect to family, friends, church, work and even doctors appoints without ever leaving our home. 

The ease of use, as well as time saving digital design gives us more time to spend with family and friends. No need to drive to the bank and stand in long lines or grocery stores if time is a challenge. With just a touch of a finger or click of a mouse business can be completed in minutes, at the same time meeting the needs of our families.

Digital technology has opened the door to many new design disciplines, far too many to name, that are shifting design in a way that is more conscious of human needs. Design is not just designing things or even places, but design consciousness is designing a better way to live and to enjoy life to the fullest.

How has the emergence of digital technologies opened the doors to many new design disciplines concerned with non-tangible objects, and what does this say about the shift in design consciousness it is bringing about?

Computers and digital technologies opened up the concept of ‘Dematerialization of Design’. As computers became more and more an everyday part of people’s lives, those designing computers had to grapple with the entire experience of using it- both the physical object, as well as the interface.  I might add the vast and complex outcomes (both intended and unintended) of having such a powerful technology have to be taken into consideration in thinking through the design process of digital technology. One example is designing and installing parental control software to protect children from harmful content made available in the digital world. 

With the explosive rapid-paced change and developments in digital technology and the need to design all aspects of the user’s experience and relationship with the technology, the smart folks at Stanford have found that we can apply the principles of design to ideas and concepts, not just tangible/material objects. Using Design Thinking in just about any context that humans are trying to solve problems and make things better has opened the door for many fields to utilize the principles of the design process to achieve positive results.

I've enjoyed reading, and pondering, all of your responses to this question. My hope, in brining our awareness to the fact that we live in a world of our own making - which is the root condition of anything I'd refer to as "design consciousness" is that it allows us the agency to make it differently. Each technology that comes along --from stone knapping to basketry to ceramics to metalurgy and ultimately digital where we are today) opens up new possibilities for the human condition, and we can choose the degree to which we center them in our lives. What's new is that we recognize now that the way we shape these amazing technologies, and the way we shape our lives around them is a skill, with a method of application (a praxis) that scaffolds our agency to achieve what we believe is "good". And its our understanding of "goodness" that is the ultimate dimension of this design consciousness that compels us, as communities of spirit, faith and wisdom, to engage in the discussion about what, and for whom to design.

Beyond general design consciousess we can also consider other design disciplines with methods, practices and wisdom of their own -- like "design for social change", or "happiness engineering", or "care architecture". What new design discipline might emerge from YOUR design consciuosness?

How has the emergence of digital technologies opened the doors to many new design disciplines concerned with non-tangible objects, and what does this say about the shift in design consciousness it is bringing about?

The emergence of digital technologies has expanded design beyond physical objects into the realm of experiences, systems, and relationships. In earlier periods, design focused primarily on tangible items like buildings or products. With the rise of digital platforms, the “object” of design has shifted toward non-tangible environments — such as websites, online communities, service systems, and user experiences. Design disciplines like UX, service design, and systems design emerged because what needed shaping was no longer material, but experiential.

This reflects a shift in design consciousness. Design is no longer primarily about aesthetics or form; it is about shaping how people interact, access support, and move through systems. It requires empathy, attention to emotional experience, and awareness of how structures impact human behavior.

In my work with Bethesda’s Pool, I see this shift clearly. We are not simply designing programs; we are designing healing experiences and support systems. The structure of a grief group, the process for accessing therapy, or the way spiritual care is integrated with clinical care — these are all non-tangible designs that shape how people experience healing. Digital technologies have made it easier to think in these systemic and experiential ways, reinforcing that design today is about intentionally shaping environments where human flourishing can occur.

Ime H.

How has the emergence of digital technologies opened the doors to many new design disciplines concerned with non-tangible objects, and what does this say about the shift in design consciousness it is bringing about?

Response:

The emergence of digital technologies has expanded the scope of design by including non-tangible experiences, systems, and interactions. In design they now focus on creating projects that shaped the experience or need for the user. It allows the user to be involved in the design and processes.

The designer is focus has moved toward understanding people—their behaviors, needs, emotions, and environments—and designing solutions that respond to those realities. In this way, design has become more human-centered and relational, emphasizing empathy, adaptability, and continuous feedback.

Additionally, the rise of digital technologies has introduced a more iterative approach to design. Digital and non-tangible designs can be continuously tested, refined, and updated based on user interaction. This has shifted design to an ongoing process of learning and improvement.

Overall, the expansion into non-tangible design disciplines signals a transformation in how design is understood. It is no longer just about creating things, but about shaping experiences and systems that influence how people live, connect, and navigate the world.

These new disciplines focus on non-tangible objects such as interfaces, emotions, accessibility, communication flow, algorithms, online communities, and user experiences. Designers are now shaping how people navigate websites, engage with digital communities, consume entertainment, learn online, worship virtually, and interact across global networks. The object of design is no longer only something people hold—it is now something people experience.

This evolution reflects a major shift in design consciousness. Design is increasingly understood as a process centered on human behavior, interaction, and systems rather than only appearance or decoration. The focus has shifted from designing isolated products to designing relationships, experiences, and environments that influence everyday life. Designers are now expected to think critically about inclusion, accessibility, ethics, emotional impact, cultural representation, and social responsibility because digital spaces shape human connection in profound ways.

The shift also demonstrates that design has become interdisciplinary and deeply integrated into leadership, communication, business, ministry, entertainment, and community engagement.