lifesavers

I like this approach as well (in theory) and only have some "anecdotal" experience - if you can call it that.

My family originated from East Europe and as such most of my family elders have an old school Soviet experience in education. Consequently they have little knowledge and no experience when it comes to modern-day Western education infrastructure. For instance, my parents were genuinely surprised to hear that I wrote written exams and submitted them only to be reviewed at face value - which is the experience of nearly all undergrads I expect. Their experience was that, even in a "straight-forward" subject like Mathematics, they had to first submit a written response to a problem set in an examination type settings - and then upon completion they would have to explain their solution and approach one-on-one with a faculty member who would only then submit a grade.

Obviously this was done to weed out the cheaters who couldn't explain why they had to correct answers to all the questions. But the result can't be ignored that one-on-one oral examinations, while not exactly pragmatic, are very effective!

In general I agree with your ideas, but I think there's a missing component: general use case. Most people only need their computers for email and web browsing. We can further simplify that and just call it - communicating.

Sure, a developer or designer salivates at the idea of more screen real estate, but that's because there's a practical use for it. PC Manufacturers follow, not decide, the needs of their users.

I love my screen real estate because I actually need it. If I just browsed Facebook, wrote a word document, and maybe planned out my finances with a spreadsheet - I'd have a hard time justifying some giant monolith of a monitor. I think this is a largely overlooked factor in the success of the mobile market.

I don't know if everyone's forgot this already but when the iPad first came out, most people were thinking: what in the actual eff is Apple thinking. Sure we all knew it'd sell because, well, Apple is Apple. But if I recall correctly most people were scratching their heads asking, "so, it's a big iPhone right?"

And guess what? It is just a big iPhone! And it succeeded NOT because it was the next "cool" thing but because it was designed to do what most people needed their computer to do, namely, send pictures of their grandkids to each other.

What exactly are we comparing here? The methods or the actual fields?

> 1. The primary objective of science is to understand the world around us whereas the primary objective of design is to improve the world around us.

Well yes - they aren't the "same thing" by definition. One has to do with "this" body of knowledge, and the other has to do with "that" body of knowledge.

> 2. The end product of a scientific method is a theory or law that is absolutely rigorous and independent of people, whereas the end product of a design process is a solution that can always be improved, depending on people.

I would also pose that perhaps the second of the two primary differing aspects listed is not true - at least not the way it's written. The scientific method does not always in "a theory or law that is absolutely rigorous and independent of people". We only find better ways to describe the world around us. Over the course of our history, we have always found better ways to explain what we held as an absolute truth previously. There does not seem to be an absolute (an entirely new discussion).

If you accept this point of view, then the parallel to design is quite obvious.

The way this article narrows it's scope - I would say they are the same thing. But at the same time the scientific method was... well... designed? So... what do I know?