The Importance of Recognizing the Important Parts

In his Sketching User Experiences, Bill Buxton attempts to change how we view the process of creating good design. He does this by focusing on valuing the process itself. This move in user experience and design (studies?) is interesting to anyone familiar with the history of rhetoric and composition. For not long ago (relatively speaking) there was a large move in composition studies to focus more on the process than on the finished product--or if not more than, then at least as much as. Thus, the use of portfolios in composition courses, etc. Many of the ideas Buxton promotes in his text, I think, could be said of writing studies as well.

Some passages that mark this similarity:

“[We should] view sketching as relating far more to an activity or process (the conversation), rather than a physical object or artifact (the sketch)” (1537). 

He argues that “The ability to participate in a conversation with a sketch involves competence in both reading and writing” (1561), and should be valued highly.

Switch "sketching" for "peer review and revision" (may not be a perfect parallel here) and we can see some similar problems existing in composition studies. And they have been written on to a great extent. Of course in composition courses it is incredibly difficult to convey these ideas successfully, to students and others who may evaluate the worth of the field of study. Students just want a good grade, something usually only associated (at least in their minds) with the finished product. And while we may try to emphasize participation and other elements of the writing process that focus on the process per se, I'm not sure how much it translates to the "real world." How often does a job candidate show his or her sketches to a potential employer when applying for a job? I don't actually know this. Perhaps a study of this kind would illuminate how much the process is being valued. According to Buxton it would seem to be just as big an issue:

“Here is the problem. Differences in our ability to create sketches are recognized and appreciated, largely because they are reinforced by a physical artifact—the sketch. However, in terms of our differing ability to read or extract new insights from sketches, there is no tangible reminder. Hence, this aspect of a designer’s skill is seldom recognized, and almost never engenders the same respect and status as the ability to draw” (1577).

Lastly, even though Tharon is trying to get us to come up with a new vocabulary, a new rhetoric, for digital rhetorics and design, there are so many similarities to many of these different genres of "composition," that creating this new rhetoric is no easy task, nor would we ever be able to argue with integrity for an authenticity or originality that the capitalist concepts of intellectual property demand of us. I applaud Buxton for trying to get us away from that mentality (the notion that one person designs something, and therefore holds claim to its existence, for example) and hope that more people read texts like this and begin to find value in the collaborative process that really is good design--that really is good anything (writing, etc.). My fear is that the capitalist paradigm still dominates our value systems. Unless, perhaps, we can begin to value the element of the sketch and other important parts of the process of design in terms of attributing to them (as well as the skills required for being a good sketcher--reading and writing, etc.) a prominent form of cultural capital, we will continue to only praise (or decry) the finished product, and only give credit to the face next to (rather than behind) the product. We all know Steve Jobs (as Buxton points out) but little credit is given (or at least acknowledged by the media, by the consumer, etc.) regarding the "little people," who Buxton posits, aren't really that little. Texts like Buxton's are obviously moves in the right direction.