Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio

As for sharing experiences during the gathering, there were various triggers,
or props, from the Make Tools to different objects and videos. These
were used instead of design games, which were considered too structured
for guiding the dialogue among only two participants. At this stage,
I found rules and turn-taking essential for design games. The props were
brought into the co-design gathering without specific connotations; the
participants attached precise meanings to them, according to particular
contextual needs. For instance, in the above example an anonymous Make
Tools foam block became binoculars, and a pile of post cards was used
later to represent a material sample. This ambiguity was seen essential
when props were utilised in envisioning design opportunities through
bodily interaction and performing, since props gained their meaning in action,
not before it. In (Vaajakallio 2009) I refer to this type of design as
enacted design and, accordingly, propose that co-design can be seen as
embodied practice. By this, I mean that co-constructing artefacts is an
integral part of interaction, one in which the emerging design is acted out
and stabilized without necessarily involving traditional modes of representations,
such as sketching by drawing. By understanding this, we can
design the activities and provide the material that will allow enacted design
to emerge in a similar manner as when we let the participants draw
by giving them pen and paper.
When design is enacted, it becomes manifested through a performance,
visualizing the consequences to everyone present and allowing
“joint reflection-in-action” (Schön 1983) that engages all participants in
the situation. The movement would be unclear in its reference if it would
not be simultaneously explained verbally like in the above example,
where F shapes her hands to illustrate a pair of binoculars and simultaneously
states “like if you have [a pair of ] binoculars”. This observation of
enacted design indicates extension to Schön’s (ibid.) notion of “language
of designing” to include, in addition to drawings, bodily gestures and performance
in addition to drawing.
However, during the seven gatherings, the main form of designing
varied from sketching on paper and experimenting with props to discussing,
with virtually no visualization. This was a result from not guiding the
participants towards particular means of expression but instead providing
them with many means for sketching. This observation suggests that
providing a wide range of media for expression allows the participants to
find an appropriate dialogue style in a particular situation, meaning that
they can rely on a medium that they are familiar with or feel comfortable
working with in a situation where the space and co-designers are typically
new to them.
To summarise, the findings from this case study shed light on the richness
and expressiveness of bodily interaction in co-design, in building a
common design language, and assigning meanings to props in the dialogue.
32