Talk:Speculative design

--Marcovedoa (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Interesting article. A couple of citations should be added

--Luthienrecanto (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Hi, Thanks for your contribution! I learned something new today. Apart from the minor changes in typos and references, I have one suggestion and I didn't want it to do it before discussing it. In the first line you define the concept but you say it is a practice. Later on, you mention it is more like an "attitude" rather than a method. However, I would suggest to change the first sentence maybe to: "is a design method (attitude or position) to critically adress societal issues by imagining possible futures through design." Please let me know what do you think about this.

--Criticaldesigner (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Thank you very much @--Luthienrecanto, your feedback is very much appreciated. I understand your concerns; they are really valid beacuse in the area of critical and discursive design one can't find a clear agreement whether they can be considered a methdology and approach or just a postion and attiude. the openions vary greatly but at the end of the day it can be considered as atype of practice with clear aims and purposes. Thank you! I'll refine the description

--Martina Signorini (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Quite new topic for me, very interesting! To add citations where there is a precise reference in the text.

previous afd ?

This seems sufficiently expanded over the article deleted at the previous afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speculative design in 2015 that G4 is not aplicable, and it would need another AfD if challenged. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following expert review of the article within the Science, Tecnology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in June 2021.

The article provides a fair description of “Speculative Design”, and a good list of references supports it.

Nevertheless, few things need to be taken into account by the author to improve a reader understanding and the article scientific robustness.

According to the literature and relevant Scholars, also mentioned in the article, Speculative design can offer principles that can trigger critical thinking and use the future as a space for critical inquiry.

The sentence “The aim is not to present commercially-driven design proposals but to design proposals that identify and debate crucial issues that might happen in the future” gives a negative connotation and appears irrelevant. A reader might be confused by such a sentence and be misled.

Speculative design deals with scenarios rather than with design proposal.

In this regard, the sentence “These provocative design proposals are meant to trigger the debate about future challenges” should be rephrased; it creates misunderstandings.

In the section “Definition”, a better explanation should be given to the meaning and role of technology and the term artefact. What does it mean “it tends to take the discussion on technology beyond the experts to a broad population of the audience”? The author tends to assume that a reader should be familiar with the use of technology in Speculative design and its role unless we don't believe that just a knowledgeable reader should read the article.

Moreover, What kind of artefact? Tangible or intangible? Is it a scenario/narration or a physical/digital one?

Generally, in all the article, I find a tension between scenario and artefact/solution that need further investigation.

In the section “Adjacent practices” the definition of a diegetic prototype is partially correct. They are not just in video format. Diegetic prototypes -very relevant for speculative design- show in different formats (video, stories, physical products etc.) fictional imaginaries, contextualize the not-yet-existing technologies and tackle ethical and societal issues.

I also suggest the use of pictures to support the entire description.

Ettmajor (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)