A Partial Definition

I dislike defining things for a few reasons:
First: I feel as though definitions often pin down ideas or concepts that, like butterflies do not often survive the act of the pin, or definition.
Second:... their "definitive" nature does not mesh well with the unintended, the unexpected, or the unattainable.

w/e, I'm probably just beating a dead horse with this.

Moving on.

There is no industrial design. Industrial design is a series of complementary skills and problem solving techniques that all contribute to the development and refinement of products, ideas, services, systems, and experiences. Industrial design is not an entity "thing" in itself. (I think this is largely why it often feels like a meaningless expression).

Industrial design should not privilege one prized technique or approach over another. The conversation should not be solely about form, or aesthetics, or product semantics, ergonomics, function, expression or rich experiences. the conversation should pick what it wants to from these established discussions to help find the more appropriate solution to the situation at hand. (situation, not problem) The dialogue between designers and the rest of the world should contribute to the increased situational knowhow and apply its own processes to its own processes.

Industrial design should not be anything, and it should not function separated from the world of situations.

I suppose my only mandate for ID is that it should stay connected to the situation at hand, but have the strength to move across any boundary in search of more appropriate solutions. I don't know... Maybe I'm just being vague, but I really don't want ID to pigeon hole anyone or anything.

The short version is good too: "Toasters, door handles, shoes, ... the future"