I'm seeing a lot of my views about design reflected in the BBC's excellent Design for Life series. And leaving aside the awkward truth that the young designers in the series appear rather weak, this kind of episodic documentary storytelling is something we in the e-learning business should aim to do more of.

For example, I've learned as much about the reality of business decision-making from Dragons Den as I did from my MBA, and my various attempts at property development owe their (admittedly mixed) success to Property Ladder, as to any training I've had or books I've read. Deliberately or not, these TV shows build in many of the "learning functions" and activities that I see so rarely in e-learning, including: paced repetition, goal-setting, emotion, presentation of opposing views, evaluation of options, situation, summaries...and so on. They draw me in and seduce me to be concerned about what's going on, at least for a short while. Above all, they proceed from the specific (the story) to the general (theory), not the other way round. And not an "interaction" in sight. 

Specifically, Design for Life reflects some important facets of design process and thinking that I don't see very often in the e-learning field:

• Design is about getting under the user's skin: in the episode I've linked to, one designer tapes up his eyes and goes for a walk in the middle of Paris so that he can feel what his blind users experience. How often do learning designers even meet their users, let alone try to get a sense of their feelings?
• Design involves bringing who you are to the party; it's about personal expression. It's not an objective, cold science. We know from many design professions that people who express who they are in their work are better designers.
• Design concepts need to be articulated visually. How much text do these designers produce in their presentations? Not much. There are no weighty specification documents, but visual boards and prototypes instead - right from the start.
• Design is about creating experiences, not "content". I've said enough on this elsewhere... 
• Design is a messy, troubled, unpredictable process, not a mechanistic flow of predictable steps.

If we're interested in learning from other design professions (whose members are, on average more highly qualified, better paid and have access to larger budgets than we do), then I suggest Design for Life is a worthwhile piece of CPD.