Interior designers: inferior ? or completely different ?

Discuss architecture, planning, interiors, landscape, and environmental design related-topics. Moderated by the ArchitectureWeek editorial and support team.

Re: Interior designers: inferior ? or completely different ?

Postby chinadecorwoods » Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:05 am

If you are thinking to design an interior bedroom or kitchen or have no idea what to add in decorating your bedroom or kitchen, we have good design choice and nice designer can help you.

We make and we design bedroom furniture and kitchen cabinets, we have also nice glazed antiqued looking cabinets for your idea.

[url=[]Bedroom Furniture and Kitchen Cabinets[/url]
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:10 am

Re: Interior designers: inferior ? or completely different ?

Postby WalkerARCHITECTS » Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:23 pm

Interiors are significant as a subset of Architecture. We seek discourse to increase the interior designer’s familiarity with and efficiency in using common, practical design methodological tools.

We seek method and analysis framed by cogent thinking and process. Interior design methods are based on fundamental methodological principles common to all design disciplines. Additionally, as interior designers encounter new and more specialized problems, they sometimes find it necessary to develop new tools of their own. We seek discourse in that context. Interior designers must be able to recognize the strengths and limitations of the methods available and adapt the methods to the unique design problems they encounter. Breaking down existing design methods into the collection of individual design methodological “tools” initiates systematic approaches for diverse design problems. Various combinations of tools can be applied to simple and complex design projects. To promote our own as well as the interior design practitioner’s understanding of design methodological tools, information could be explored here regarding design method and tools and organized into patterns or logic structures. If designers have access to various tools presented in a common language, they will generate more diverse solutions.

Although systematic methods are already in use, the practice of design as a formal process can be made stronger. Interior design is a process planned to yield interiors that function well and are aesthetically pleasing (Kilmer & Kilmer, 1992). The design process has been defined as a sequence of unique actions leading to the realization of some aim or intention (Koberg & Bagnall, 1991). Interior design projects involve a number of steps in a logical order (Pile, 2003).

The tools used by interior designers generally fall into the same two categories as those used by other design disciplines based on the fundamental design methodological principle common to all design disciplines. As interior designers encounter new and more specialized problems, they find it necessary to develop tools unique to their field’s highly specialized requirements. To promote interior design practitioners’ understanding of tools, a uniform method for utilizing the tools is needed. We seek to establish the traditional methods as a jumping point for innovation.

At present, formal design methods are not well utilized by interior designers. Existing design methodological tool options, in particular, need to be introduced in a more uniform method that encourages comparison and initial use.

Walker Architects has suggested restructuring the design process on the basis of design methods and techniques of problem solving into three stages: analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. and of course a refinement cycle. We acknowledge that the steps could be described simply as “breaking the problem into pieces,” “putting the pieces together in a new way,” and “testing to discover the consequences of putting the new arrangement into practice” As the steps are cycled, each cycle is less general and more detailed than the one before it. Systematic design methods allow both creative and logical thinking. Creative thinking refers to the random ideas and insights in designers’ minds, while logical thinking refers to data, information, and requirements outside designers’ memories. This binary way of thinking permits and encourages extensive problem exploration and analysis to identify all the factors and their relationships so that all solutions for each factor can be identified.

A universal process of problem solving, noting that each procedure shows the basic components of analysis, synthesis, and definition, where definition is a bridge between analysis and synthesis. Analysis is individualized and specific, but synthesis involves three parts: searching for ideas, making selections, and implementing selections. We then concluded with two steps that indicate self-motivation and self-improvement: acceptance at the beginning and evaluation after the steps have been completed, for a total of seven steps previously posted.

We would like to expand the discussion.
Posts: 808
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:12 am


Return to Architecture Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


User Control Panel


Who is online

In this forum zone there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 593 on Sat May 26, 2018 5:18 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
DesignCommunity   ·   ArchitectureWeek   ·   Great Buildings   ·   Archiplanet   ·   Books   ·   Blogs   ·   Search
Special thanks to our sustaining subscribers Building Design UK, Building Design News UK, and Building Design Tenders UK.