Ok, so parts of this essay are sort of infuriating to me right now
- Particularly
$$\color{red}24.$$ Of course, a designer who spoke to an expert on, say, Babylonian mathematics, might well have come across some of these ideas. We'll ignore that, since it depends on the oddity that many excellent prior ideas about numeral systems had been displaced in Roman culture.)
in relation to yCZFWt57R would not cause you to discover any deep insights about the field- certainty that this reflects the author's viewpoint:: {{a}}
- certainty of claim:: {{a}}
- This just seems insane thing to ignore if your claim is that immersing yourself in the field is insufficient to generate the relevant insights -- since immersing yourself in the field -- as I see it, would ensure you eventually found someone who knew something about Babylon
- I'm also taking for granted that
- the situation where Roman culture had displaced good Bablyonian ideas isn't unique.
- We've now displaced good ideas from the 60s 70s and 80s
- I mean -- maybe someone like IDEO who is doing a 1 year project is going to fail this way -- but what the hell is the person doing by
you'd interview domain experts (in this case, mathematicians),
and read any relevant literature.
if not trying to reach a deep enough understanding of the field to have the relevant insights for solving their design problem - I'm going to hope that there is some stuff later that presents an alternative to
- Perhaps what they're saying is that iff you only focused on
In short, you'd do what people in the design community refer to as immersing themselves in the target field.
you wouldn't have a wide enough definition of the field, you wouldn't be able to find anyone who knew anything about how they did things in Bablyon, or if you did you wouldn't be interested in the approaches that they were taking