Just came across this book in the library. I’ve been thinking about this phrase “design for” and what that really means. Design for engagement, design for serendipity. 
I just had a conversation with a colleague who talked about those weird cut-off tops of train seats and how they were intended for a particular kind of social conduct - scooting over to a better seat. Or think about the difference between thrift shops and department stores; they don’t just carry different merchandise, they build a unique experience, change your expectations. My colleagues involved in network weaving and I recently discussed this as well - how does one design the structure of a network in service of its goals?
How does one “design for liberty”?
What area you designing for? Do you achieve it? And what, really, is the relationship between structure and outcomes?

Just came across this book in the library. I’ve been thinking about this phrase “design for” and what that really means. Design for engagement, design for serendipity.

I just had a conversation with a colleague who talked about those weird cut-off tops of train seats and how they were intended for a particular kind of social conduct - scooting over to a better seat. Or think about the difference between thrift shops and department stores; they don’t just carry different merchandise, they build a unique experience, change your expectations. My colleagues involved in network weaving and I recently discussed this as well - how does one design the structure of a network in service of its goals?

How does one “design for liberty”?

What area you designing for? Do you achieve it? And what, really, is the relationship between structure and outcomes?