Abstract

I discuss two senses of “design”, proposing terms to distinguish them, as follows: (1) Conceptual design: A conceptual description or scheme; a blueprint of a solution to be implemented, not necessarily manifested in an artifact that substantiates the design. (2) Perceptual design: A crafted arrangement of items meant to appeal to, or otherwise impact the mind of, a perceiver, by dint of its form perceptible by the senses. This distinction helps avoid confusion and would be needed to define a taxonomy or ontology of design. I explain these two senses with literature references as well as examples. Conceptual design and perceptual design are not opposites or on par with each other. Conceptual design is applicable to any artifact, being the underlying scheme for development/instantiation of that artifact. Perceptual design is needed only for artifacts (and aspects/components thereof) meant for human perception. One may need to do conceptual design of perceptual design. However, conceptual design is done most often for developing the functional aspect of complex systems and thus is mostly discussed in the context of functional design. I contrast perceptual design with functional design, these two being types or aspects of design that could be seen as values on one of the dimensions of a taxonomy of design. One of the implications of the difference is the different types of intellectual property protection that are applicable. Another is the need for different skill sets. I suggest possible dimensions of a design taxonomy. More work is needed to develop a taxonomy (or an ontology) of design, to describe its implications, and show how it can be exploited.