Seminar Article:From Myth to Science

Question 1: Describe at least 2 ideas that you connected with discussions in class with points or ideas raised in the article.

One very basic idea this article talks about is the way we increase speeds in order to save time, called "time budgeting". It may not be very evident, but a lot of conclusions we came to (in class) for failing ecological ideas was time budgeting.People do not have the time, therefore, they will not bother doing this or that.

Quoting the article: "Situations in which the car is parked right next to one's home and the public transport stop is far away, offer limited freedom of choice. " This was one issue that was discussed in class during the Bangalore Mobility Project research. Following this, Dr. Knoflacher brings up the idea that anyone using more public space per capita, must pay more for it. I would take this back to the day we spoke about articles from "The ecological footprint" in which our discussion spoke of air pollution, and how one could own air, and pay a fees for polluting the air, and how do we define who owns what space of air.

Question 2: Explain any one big issue that was raised in this article that you had not encountered before.

One big issue that I had not encountered earlier, was the basic role of separating commercial spaces and residential spaces, and how it affects the ecological condition of the planet. Separating commercial spaces from residential spaces only urges us to travel more, and therefore consume more energy. If the same space was used for commercial as well as residential purposes in an organized fashion, we would save a lot of energy, and more over, the city would be become more sustainable.
However one big idea that the article states is lower speed transport, and not using time budgeting to prioritize modes of transport. I doubt I would want to agree with this idea, since humans have reached the stage of advancement that they have and have fashioned their needs accordingly, I don't think this concept would be feasible.


Question 3: When you were reading the article, did you find yourself agreeing with something, that you have often thought of, but never articulated for yourself – describe this aspect that you resonated with.

"Besides the 'trivial' engineering indicators like cost or space, the most important criteria is the acceptance or accessibility for the user, because the ultimate purpose for public transport is service for people."

This is something which I have always found important, but never really have been able to articulate. Coming from India's first and most well-planned city, where any distance can be covered within a matter of minutes, and also from a city where each person owns 2 cars, acceptance of the public transport system is essential. For example, in Delhi, where students and businessmen were hesitant to travel by buses, because economically lower people would travel by them, the underground Metro is a place where anyone and everyone would feel comfortable traveling and eager to travel in it, for time efficiency purposes also.

Question 4: Did you research on the author? Please do and briefly describe what you found out about the author and if in your opinion you think he/she is credible.

The author for the seminar article, "From myth to science" is Prof. Dr. Hermann Knoflacher. Dr. Knoflacher has been involved in over a 100 realized projects in traffic engineering and transportation policies and measures. Since 1967, he has had 5 books and more than 400 scientific publications published, and has conducted more than 1.000 lectures in the field of transport planning and traffic engineering worldwide all over the globe. Having worked in the field himself, I believe Dr. Knoflacher would be credible.

(for further ref: http://www.clubofvienna.org/website/output.php?idfile=695 )

Question 5: Would you change the emphasis of the message in any way if you were writing this article? If yes, what would your emphasis be and why?

I think the message would have to depend from audience to audience. The article is quite compact for a design student, but would seem like repulsive text for a layman. If I had to change the emphasis, it would depend on the audience I am looking at.

Knowing Co-workers

Name of Student being asked the questions: Tanushri wahi
Name of the student seeking answers: Mahima Pushkarna
Project name: Mobility in Bangalore.



Do you think that the number of people you interviewed were enough?
Yes, enough to get a general idea about how people travel around the area.

How many sheets did you personally take responsibility for during this exercise?
Three sheets which were completely done by me and working on other slides which needed help here and there.

Do you think that the time you took to make the sheets you did was appropriate?
It took time coming up with a layout in a way that it conveys the right meaning. Reworking also took time for the same reason. But the time we took was appropriate.

What are all the problems you faced when you were doing this exercise?
The intended meaning and what was actually understood out of the logos was different. Co-ordinating a common layout was a problem initially until we were supervised. Maintaining consistency among the slides.

What were the things you felt you were happy about in this exercise?
That we actually came up with a ‘whole’ project after going through so many differences. The entire view of information design was extremely enriching and I learnt a lot.

Which are the things you will never forget that you learnt during this exercise?
I don’t know.. It depends on how I regularly I apply them.

What was the worst part of the work of this exercise?
The first step of coming to a common consensus about the layout of the slides, the part where the students were given responsibility.

What are the doubts that you think that the students in Milan would have when they saw your work?
They probably wont be able to understand the cultural background we come from in order to understand the compromises we make while choosing the modes of transport.

Nature..

NATURE

QUANTITATIVE





QUALITATIVE