Digital Design History: State of the Field, Definitions and Possibilities

Abstract The complexity and ephemerality of digital objects have made it difficult to approach their study, not least by design historians. However, the methodologies of design history are well-suited to the critical analysis of these “objects.” In particular, Grace Lees-Maffei’s production–consumption–mediation (PCM) paradigm and John Walker’s production–consumption model offer frameworks of analysis that align with the emergent and processual nature of digital objects. That said, a rethinking of these frameworks is necessary to account for the slippery ontology of digital material. Further, what even constitutes the “digital object,” for design historians, as a subject is in need of definition. The aim of this article is to address both these issues, thus establishing a way forward for design historians to study digital artifacts. This article is structured into three parts. The first is a literature review examining extant design historical literature on digital objects, research gaps in current approaches of design history as applied to digital material culture and surveys works from adjacent fields that have made headway in definitions of, and research approaches to digital objects. The second concerns definitions and establishes categories of digital objects and their properties. The third reevaluates the PCM paradigm and production–consumption model through a case study, demonstrating how they might be adapted to suit digital design.