-

Unlike various other fields, in design it is occasionally quite difficult to define your own goals, the object of your work, and the methods entailed in due theoretical and scientific terms. And when several designers (in particular if they concern themselves not just with designing things, but also, for instance, with theoretical issues) then there is always a wrangle over finding that common definition as to what “design” means in the first place. This is all the more surprising if we bear in mind that at least since the end of the 1970s there has been a wide-ranging consensus that what is specific to design can be designated Using the concept of “product language”. Now and again, other concepts are used instead (e.g. design semiotics, product semantics, semantic surplus value, etc.). However, the methods used are more or less identical. So the question remains, what the objectives are today, or are again today – for precisely this seems to have become somewhat neglected. Reason enough to ask what the current state of things is in the domain of “product language” and what new perspectives are possibly emerging there. In the discussion of objectives, the focus is always on lending greater precision to scientific insights, differentiating them further and perfecting them, something that is then reflected in the specialist literature. There are substantial shortcomings in this regard in the field of design; indeed, on occasion one might be forgiven for thinking that actually we are witnessing retrogression. In this context, we must in particular ask what becomes of the “product language” if, as always claimed, its objects disappear - which they naturally do not - or only change, for example: hardware increasingly becomes software, the individual pro ducts become a pro duet pro gram or system, alongside the design of products, the development of concepts and strategies becomes more important, the image of the company and communication thereof seemingly becomes more important than the products themselves, and service are considered more important than the production of goods itself. Today, hardly anyone doubts that the brief for designers is changing. For example four areas are defined in which design is active: product and process design (this includes classical industrial design), product and process planning (this includes compiling design concepts, images, product lines, corporate design), design management (This includes, among other things, tying design into the innovation processes), design research (Including the application of new procedures and media, implementing insights from other disciplines). This shows clearly that developments requiring a differentiated, in-depth and expanded understanding of language are emerging at an increasing number of levels; and this is visible precisely in areas that have to date hardly been affected by such matters. Thus, product language of course no longer revolves solely on a discussion of the individual products and their design details. The tools of practical work today have little bearing as objects of research.