The four P’s
The framework for the Probable/Plausible/Possible/Preferable is a wonderfully simple way to consider where your work sits along the spectrum of imagined futures. The preferable, however, seems that it should be much more narrow in the illustration, almost near impossible when considering ALL involved in the scenario. We have yet to create a scenario in which all players are entirely within a preferable future. Rather, if this is only considering a select minority to which the imaginary future is preferable, this could hold more structurally sound.
It would be worth considering creating Probable/Plausible/Possible/Preferable diagrams for various personas, such as the current consumers driving the world’s future industry, versus the illiterate who have no say in where the future is taking us. Each of these future Probable/Plausible/Possible/Preferable wheels would change drastically.
D Fictions about C Design
The final quotes on the iphone,
“If it’s not art, don’t do it in a museum.”
Really captures the differing method of design fiction practice and the conventional notion of practicing the arts. Speculative critical design works as such because of its interaction with the audience. A sterile, or identified-as-fictional approach very much alters the carnal reaction desired from a work that is trying to engage participants in a “what if” space.
How We Intend to Future
Tonkinwise raises strong opening discussion in how we are directly responsible for our futures, regardless of how high we think of our engagement levels. It seems that companies would hold more desire to think of desirability of futures through speculative design instead of what is concrete and marketable. Much of the future is speculative and unpredictable, so why would we rely on data and algorithms that cannot predict the unpredictable?