Editorial

In introducing this issue, I want first to reflect a little on the two previous CoDesign special issues 2:4 and 3:1. The observant will have noticed that the strap line to CoDesign reads, “International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts.” Historically, design and art were closely connected within a shared theoretical and educational framework. This was reflected in what, in my day, was called the pre-diploma, a diagnostic course in preparation for subject specialist selection, e.g. painting, sculpture, graphic design, etc., which pitched all students into the same theoretical and practical context.

Art and design were connected, yes, but like any family, not without tensions, frustrations and eventual separations. Over the latter half of the twentieth century, design can be said to have grown up. Design is now seen as a function that underpins plural human activities, supported by a broad theoretical base, much of which might be seen as rather distant from the concerns of art. It is probably the case that there is less commonality between contemporary art and design curricula than there used to be, particularly as one moves outside of the traditional art and design domains into engineering and service oriented design. It is not surprising that some might see art and design as having little to say to each other.

However, like design, art is also redefining itself and it is possible to see a coming together again of art and design. In the introduction to CoDesign 2:4, New directions in interactive art collaboration, Ernest Edmonds quotes Dechamp's claim that “the spectator … adds his contribution to the creative act.” This points to the idea that the meaning of a work of art is not to be found in the artefact itself, but the relations that can be made with and through the artefact; an idea not unfamiliar to contemporary design thinking and making, and in particular that represented in CoDesign. In art, this idea finds fuller expression in the notion of relational aesthetics (Bourriard 2002).

Both change in art and design can be seen, at least in part, as a response to a technological context in which artefacts are increasingly transient and intangible; an environment which, whilst challenging to both sense and senses, proves to be not devoid of meaning. Is it not hard to imagine a CoDesign special issue introduced with a modified version of Edmonds' observation that, “In fact the term design [‘artwork’] is, on this account, sometimes replaced by design system [‘art system’], an entity that exists within a matrix in which the spectator [user] is a crucial part” (Edmonds 2006). It is with these shared concerns in mind that CoDesign is opened up for art to enter.

Moving on to CoDesign 3:1, entitled Team mental models in design, I want to focus not on its topic, the importance of which, in any case, is captured in Petra Badke-Schaub's introduction, but on its form. Unusually and successfully, in my opinion, the special issue embodies a crucial doubling: reflection on reflection on our understanding of team mental models. As an editor, it is very pleasing to see contributors challenging the conventions of academic discourse. Indeed, both CoDesign issues are linked by a focus on mediated relations, here in terms of an exploration of how sense is made in the research endeavour through discourse that opens up relations for sustained examination. I look forward to other proposals for special issues matched by a similar ambition of creativity in both the acquisition and manifestation of understanding.

So much for the past, now let's turn to the present and this issue, CoDesign 3:2. In An embodied cognition framework for interactive experience, Bilda, Candy and Edmonds observe that in interactive art, the meaning of the work is made in the interaction. An embodied cognition framework may be used, they argue, to explore an individual's cognition while he or she is engaged in an interactive art experience. In the paper they examine how a participant's interactive experience of different artworks might be characterised using an embodied cognition framework in which bodily interaction, thought and perception are examined. They define a cognitive system as a system of interactions between the participants, the tools and the environment engaged in the experience and go on to explore how such a cognitive framework might be revealed. For this purpose, a protocol analysis technique is developed and applied, which they claim provides an effective way to characterize the experience of an artwork, i.e. the interactions between body and feedback, body and thought and thought and feedback. Finally, they investigate how this approach might be applied to other interactive artwork experiences.

According to Keay-Bright, the sensory experiences of people on the autistic spectrum are markedly different from non-autistic people, creating such confusion and anxiety that many autistic people live encumbered by fear. In her paper entitled, Can computers create relaxation? Keay-Bright builds on prior research supporting the proposition that, in this context, virtual worlds can provide a relaxing and therapeutic shield against the disturbing distractions of the real world. It is claimed that ReacTickles offers such a world, having been designed to promote relaxation, encourage spontaneous play, and support learning for children on the autistic spectrum. The paper describes how the participatory design, development and evaluation strategies employed over the entire design process were informed by the distinct needs and characteristics of the target population.

Completing this issue of the journal is Reid and Reed's paper, Conversational grounding and visual access in collaborative design, in which they investigate the role of visual access in supporting the exchange of positive evidence of mutual understanding in collaborative design. They describe a study in which design dyads undertook two design tasks differing in the mix of gestural and speech cues needed to signal mutual understanding. When prohibited for being able to see each other's design activity, they were either in full view of or merely able to hear each other. They found that the designers' use of conversational speech, gesture, and representational media varied systematically as they adjusted to the loss of visual access, although under all conditions they produced acceptable solutions. Reid and Reed argue that understanding of the changing patterns of conversational and workspace activity observed can inform the seamless blending of real and virtual images and objects in augmented reality interface design. Finally, they draw out the human factors implications of thinking about and sharing design ideas through such interfaces.