What do we mean when we say “Philosophy of Design” and when we say “Design Philosophy”? Are the terms equivalent? I suggest that we consider the process of design, the conception as a way of knowing. then we can look at the question of what philosophical analysis is available both of, and through, design. These questions useful for my research, because i must design devices and systems that let me explore knowing. That the answers must somehow be effected by the devices I design and construct means that this question will run through my research.
But this research is in it’s earliest stages. After all, if I knew the answers, or even had completely defined my questions, then my activities would not be research in the sense of making an original contribution to knowledge. Rather it would amount to an intellectual Easter egg hunt, where I pursue answers hidden by doting adults. I start where the adults stop.

So here is my starting point, and the words I use are not merely part of the map, but part of the ground, itself. I start by saying that philosophy, as a discipline, asks what is good, what is true and what is beautiful. while philosopher’s have repeatedly answered these questions in different ways over the ages, and even denied the possibility of answers or the validity of these questions, they still engage with what is correct action, what can be known and what we find attractive.
At a recent talk given by Amanda Williams, she spoke about the possibility of knowledge being embodied in a design, as well as interrogating society and offering a method of action. She mentions, and forgive me as I forget who she is quoting, that design makes some actions more or less difficult. These choices imply an ethical element, because the intention of the design leads to certain actions on the part of the user. While a user may find a behavioral excess in a object, for example, using an Eames lounge chair as a creche for successive litters of kittens, it was original intended as a chair for relaxation and one that respected the contemporary era in its choices of construction, as well as its historical antecedents.
In my case, I am designing devices that allows us to interact with playable media. These devices require more force then the typical controller, because I want to have users use their body that makes them aware of the totality of their bodies in the effort to use my controllers. I also want them to have the choice of interacting agonistically, that is, in competition, as well as cooperatively either with each other and with a virtual actor, or against that actor or another human individual or team.
I reiterate that my awareness of the affordances I provide is important as I want an open ambiguous set of possible answers, rather than a preordained result. The knowledge I explore is the intentionality, which I currently define as the experience of having experience, that we locate in play. I do not want to be guilty of hiding the Easter eggs I want to find. It would be the worst deceit to build confirmation bias into my research method.
Some of my milestones are to look at at the work of Donald A. Norman, who coined the term ‘affordances’ and wrote The Design of Everyday Things.
He also wrote about the problem of gesture in contemporary UIs in

Bibliography below is taken from Donald Norman’s paper “Affordances and Design” accessed 30 March 2012 from

The primary reference to affordances in perception is Gibson, 1979, but also see Gibson, 1977.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday.