The traditional role of design, perhaps, is to discover and express meaningful differences, which make the benefits and unique qualities of any object apparent. In this sense, design may become a conduit for establishing semantic connections between objects by expressing their essence, their identity.
Semantically connected objects create what I call texture. In the world of objects, there are those which possess semantic linkages, and those which do not. The latter are undifferentiated objects with ambiguous connotations of use or identity. These “fuzzy” objects are unclassifiable, existing between categories. They cannot be typified. And while undifferentiated objects have the inherent potential to become adaptive, this does not exclude adaptive objects from adding texture. Objects that are adaptive express their essence directly in the way in which they are used, and design can provide a framework which accentuates these patterns of use.
Texture is desirable, because it helps orient. It creates a “bumpy” space in which objects express their meaning and thereby enable their own discoverability, in the process allowing for meaningful systems of classification and correlation. And as much as texture is seen as desirable in any facette of our universe of things, design may be seen as its enabler.
[...] Like typography, maps can be read at various scales—both macro and micro. Recently, Edward Tufte wrote about the power of images as logos when read at a macro scale. Maps work the same way. At a micro scale, maps are functional information carriers. At a macro scale, maps may become iconic, and as icons, they are metaphoric signifiers. Orientation comes from recognition of place, and geographic maps, as signifiers of place, help form recognition through identity. What comprises identity is a similar question to what makes places unique: it is never a single thing, but the combination of many elements that form a whole. [...]