Some points made in this paper seemed to confirm my feelings about the effectiveness of different design fiction mediums. A common string between many of the articles and papers we have read this semester has been about the difference between expressing design fiction as literature or a physical prototype. This paper goes on to make points that the field of design fiction is mainly accessible to educated Western males because of its dependence on English. Because expression and comprehension of design fiction pieces often relies heavily on being fluent in English it is inherently made unaccessible to anyone who does not know English. This means that the future is being imagined and projected to the public by a very small subset of the population.
I would make the argument that expressing design fiction pieces as physical prototypes and scenario narratives rather than text heavy representations could increase accessibility. Pictures and objects are fairly universal and can be understood intuitively. I’m in support of people working cross/anti disciplinarily. “For over a millennium, the official language of science was latin – a very effective way to keep the masses out of knowledge-generating activity”. These intentional barriers to keep knowledge from the masses is particularly frightening to me. Maybe these barriers are put in place by people who are afraid they might be proven wrong or that a “non-professional” might do better work than them. Should “un-trained” designers be kept out of design?