Language in Design Thinking

At the Crossroads Between Understanding, Meaning, and Telling

Daniel Petcu asked a good question in the Computational Design Group:

#ProgrammableFoam, #VariableDensity, AdaptiveHardness, and my #GradientStiffness - different names for the same idea. It is a good exercise for the mind to play with words and concepts trying to understand which one is more intuitive or is more connected with a real product or process. But, what if each one represents one view & perspective of the same complex process & product? What do they have in common and what makes them different?

This inquiry cuts deeper than semantics—it's about the tectonics of meaning-making in design. Language doesn’t merely reflect what we know; it frames how we perceive, interpret, and ultimately shape reality. And in return, the way we perceive and shape the world feeds back into the language we use.

The act of naming isn’t passive—it’s constitutive.

In this case, the four terms highlight different epistemic entry points into the same material phenomenon. Each emphasizes a different "truth" of the object—one computational, another physical, another perceptual, and so on. And perhaps they don’t just describe different attributes but conjure distinct ways of engaging with the system they name.

Let’s break this down:

Focus on Distribution

The first term in each description focuses on "distribution." Each term is a cognitive lens, a viewpoint in a multidimensional coordinate space of ideas:

Programmable: Signals embedded logic, algorithmic control, an encoded responsiveness—rules written into material behavior.

Variable: Focuses on parameters—things that can be dialed, measured, and tuned. It turns the material into a space of inputs and outputs.

Adaptive: Implies feedback, interaction, and response. It's less about input and more about evolution—systems that sense and respond.

Gradient: Introduces continuity. It's a spatial metaphor, where change happens not in steps, but in flows.

The word choice relates to the perceptual domain you choose to activate—programming logic, parametric flexibility, environmental interaction, or topological continuity.

Every term becomes a kind of interface—a threshold between what’s designed and what’s understood. In computational design, these thresholds are critical. A term like "programmable" might invite a different design workflow than "adaptive," even if the underlying system remains the same.

Naming, then, becomes a design act in itself.

Focus on Materiality

Beneath the semantics lies the physical substance:

Foam: Porous, light, deformable. It’s the substrate—what carries all the other modifiers.

Density: The scalar field—how much matter per unit space. You change density, you shift mass, compression, and insulation.

Hardness: A tactile property, linked to resistance—what the hand feels and what the body pushes against.

Stiffness: A structural behavior—how a material resists deformation under load.

These are not interchangeable, but entangled. They modulate each other, just like the descriptors do. The complexity isn’t just in the system—it’s in how we see it.

Ambiguity as Potential

What if the goal isn’t to settle on one term, but to allow them to coexist? Each term captures a vector through a complex design space. Together, they form a linguistic gradient that mirrors the material gradient. The multiplicity is not a flaw—it’s the terrain.

Ambiguity may invite confusion for engineering -- but exploration in design!

Designing with ambiguity is not an accident—it's a technique. When we name something, we draw a line. The goal is not to choose one term over another, but to walk the gradient between them and let that motion generate insight, and thus new lines for design.

#computationaldesign #ai #ml #language #designthinking #semantics #etimology #ambiguity