Mapping throughout Soho, Tribeca, and Noho. I took various images of graffiti and placed them on a layout to create a collage instead
Whether looking at Dubberly’s bridge model or Baty’s deconstruction of analysis techniques, we can infer that analysis is a segment of the research or design process. It lies somewhere in the middle of the process, between observation/research and creating “what could be”. An analysis is our way of individually interpreting information after we have gathered it from our resources, which we then use to discuss the future. Even though they perceive analysis in a similar fashion, the way they go about the process has distinct differences.
When looking into the mindset of Dubberly, we see that he believes “designers and researchers move up through a level of analysis in order to move forward through time to the next desired state” (Dubberly 1). He discusses researchers going in depth with their analysis by formulating it similar to a story line where it is gradually being built up and one event leads to another. We begin thinking about the present and continue by envisioning how we are going to reach future ideas. There is also an importance placed on trying to make our analysis turn into something visual. The bridge model not only uses analysis as a deconstruction of our research, but also a construction of something concrete such as a prototype. The only way designers could fully develop their concept is through constant iterations and testing before coming up with a final product. Learning can come from creation, not just words in a book. Over time Dubberly’s model has evolved, but only a few of the new creators discuss the importance of the model is to the design and research process. However, if we look at this method now, we can see how important it is to model when designing various systems as “glossing over modeling can limit design to the world of form making and misses and opportunity to push toward interaction and experience” (Dubberly 4).
Moving onto Baty’s insight, the way I understood his explanation for analysis is that he doesn’t construct it like a step by step guide, but as a list of techniques. When combined together the techniques become the analytical process. He lists various approaches designers can choose and piece together like selecting ingredients to add when cooking a meal while analyzing their research and observations. Baty is surprised by how little is written about analysis when he sees it as a fundamental skill for designers to obtain. Without analysis we can’t understand the true value our research gives us. At the same time Baty also makes note that “good analysis can salvage something from bad research, but the converse is not so true” (Baty 1).
When looking at the techniques Baty offers us, they don’t seem to all fit under one category of Dubberly’s bridge model. Some of the techniques such as summarizing or generalizing our data correlate with the bottom row left column where we are just describing our research. If we move to the top two quadrants, identifying a model of what “is” relates to Baty’s technique of deconstruction while a model of what “could be” goes along with manipulation or transformation. None of the techniques possess a hierarchy, meaning none of them have greater importance or influence on another. It is just that some techniques may work with certain data over others. Baty concludes his thoughts with a few techniques that fit in with analysis, but he is not necessarily sure where because they “couldn’t decide if they were already covered by the techniques above” (Baty 6). These three techniques include reflection, visualization, number-crunching. They could probably be understood as sub-techniques that fit under the other techniques Baty had mentioned prior.
Personally, I also don’t think there is a certain technique that I use more frequently over another. When researching for a paper or studying for an exam, I often find myself deconstructing, generalizing, and summarizing information from various textual sources. But I using a mass amount of quantitative data I usually find myself manipulating my research or transforming it into graphs, which are easier to read. I also don’t think Baty’s categories work over Dubberly’s model or vice versa. Instead, I think these two could work cohesively when going through the analysis process.
Baty, Steve. “Deconstructing Analysis Techniques.” Johnny Holland. N.p., 17 Feb. 2009. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.
Dubberly, Hugh, Shelley Evenson, and Rick Robinson. “The Analysis-Synthesis Bridge Model.”Dubberly Design Office. N.p., 1 Mar. 2008. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.