Category: ARTM2220 Designing for New Media

1. Do you agree or disagree with any of the designers’ statements, why?

I agree with all of the designers as they all talk about how design is meant to look at the future. What is going to happen or what is not going to happen and how they can adjust things to that.

1. Has anything the designers said changed how you thought about design?

Everything in our world has been designed. Whether we realize it or not. Every object tells a story even if you can’t read it. When they are designing, the designers look at the extremes and therefore the middle will balance out. They look at designing things that won’t date as bad as other things. Design something that gets better with use, something that can be worn in rather than warns out.

1. Each designer interviewed for “Objectified” defined how they see Design, how would you define design and how has that definition changed?

Before watching this I would have defined design as the more complicated side of things. Like technology objects, websites, complex yet simple object.

After watching the movie I would define design as making everyday objects simple for the users without the user feeling like it has been designed. Making the complicated simple for everyone.

For the most part, I found myself agreeing with all of the points brought up in the documentary. There were only a few instances of statements that I disagreed with or questioned. The first was a relatively unassuming quote from Karim Rashid: “You imagine, if you design a million chairs to date, or how many chairs have been done in the world, why on Earth would we have an uncomfortable chair? There’s like no excuse, whatsoever.” There’s a plethora of excuses for designing an uncomfortable chair. I believe we discussed in class how chairs are designed for the amount of time you’re intended to sit on them. If you don’t want people to sit on the chair for very long, making it uncomfortable is arguably “good” design in that case. Comfort is also quite difficult to segment, as the concept of ergonomics relates more to tailor-made products than it does mass-produced ones. For simple logistical purposes, chairs are designed with a wide range of people in mind, and can’t please everyone. Another statement from Karim that I questioned was “If the shelf life of a high-tech object is less than eleven months, it should be all 100% disposable.” While I can understand the sentiment behind the claim, and I agree that sustainability is important, I feel as though Karim’s wish is either hyperbolic or unrealistic at the present time. I don’t necessarily disagree with the statement, but I don’t think it’s realistic either.

That being said, this statement, coupled with the statements of some of the other designers in this documentary, prompted me to think quite a bit more about sustainability in everyday design. Karim’s utopian idea of a smartphone made of sugarcane might not be realistic, but it certainly makes one think. Similarly, the story that Thomas Overthun tells about stumbling over his own toothbrush on a beach led me to think more about the space an object occupies both during and after its use, geographically, mentally, and volumetrically. I also found myself thinking more about how design fits into the user’s personal story, how users feel about their own ability to understand a design, and how some designs come about from extensive group planning whilst others are moments of singular inspiration.

Prior to watching this documentary, I’m not sure I had a concrete definition of design, and I’m not sure if I do now having watched it either. Complete or not, the definition of design that I’ve come up with is that design is the act of creating objects or experiences that provide utility. It’s a basic definition, but it’s broad in its interpretation and application. To provide utility is essentially to make an object or experience better in some way. Even if the design is an intentionally uncomfortable chair, that chair is uncomfortable for a reason. It might not make the object or experience better for the user, but it makes it better for the entity it was designed for – for example, urban tourism in the case of defensive design. Price itself allows for a measure of utility. If people are willing to pay for a design, it must have some kind of utility.

I tend to agree with most of what the designers in “Objectified” had to say about design. Most of them seem to agree that most everything is designed – intentionally or not and that the best designs have stories to tell, are long-lived, get better with age, and connect emotionally with the user. The best designs are those that people want to keep.

I disagree with the statement by Karim Rashid that there is no reason that anyone, in this day and age, should design an uncomfortable chair. I do believe that most chairs should be comfortable; however, there is a time and place for an uncomfortable chair. Uncomfortable chairs can be used to keep people from staying in one place for too long. Fast-food restaurants don’t want their customers to linger for overly-long periods of time, and their business thrives on the fast turn-around. Bus stop benches are purposefully made uncomfortable for a variety of reasons. One reason would be to dissuade the homeless from sleeping on them. Another would be, so people who are waiting for the bus don’t get too comfortable and miss the bus for lack of attention. I tend to read everywhere I go. If the story is interesting enough and I was sitting at a comfortable bus stop, I might get so absorbed in my book that I would miss the fact that my bus was at the stop. Being uncomfortable keeps the user focused on the next task that they need to complete so they can get out of the uncomfortable situation they are currently in.

I was familiar with the concepts being discussed in “Objectified.” Because of this, I did not have an epiphany moment while watching the video. I did find that I related to Bill Moggridge’s story about how, after using the laptop computer he designed, he forgot about the physical design of the product and realized he needed to learn how to design the software as well, so he could design the whole experience. This story made me think of when I first realized that I would like to learn how to build websites. My first experience with “coding” came from designing online products for the company I work for. I was creating templates for our users to create business card through our website and the templates had to match the print versions we had already done. I would get lost in the code, trying to figure out how to accomplish specific tasks. Hours would go by, but it didn’t feel like hours. I realized I was having fun.

I have always thought of design as a way to take the information given to me and make it easy to understand by organizing it in such a way that makes it clearly communicate ideas. The short answer is to “pretty it up.” My view of design started to change when I realized how much more is expected of a designer today than was expected twenty years ago. A designer of yesterday was able to survive by specializing in one area of design with some basic knowledge of other areas. Now, designers must be diverse in their specialties with more than just basic knowledge of other areas. Designers need to be able to think about all aspects of design, not just how the product will look, but how that product will impact the world – “Cradle to grave” design for physical products and thinking about the impact digital products might have on society. Since I have been back to school, my definition of design has changed a bit and will most likely continue to evolve with each new class that I take.

1. Do you agree or disagree with any of the designers’ statements, why?

Most of the designers in the film had similar opinions on what design is.  Overall they were very passionate about the thought process involved in design from creation to distribution to disposal of the product.  They want items to be worth having and not just create stuff for consumers.  I have to agree with all of that as I believe that people have become too material heavy and many companies are just creating more and more items in hopes that people will continue to buy more.  Even though I agree that good design can increase the purpose of an item, I don’t think it works for everyone to have one item do everything.  Jonathan Ive, Senior Industrial Designer at Apple, talked about how they focus on putting as many functions as possible into one piece.  That means that something is designed well when it has multiple functions.  I believe there is some worth to this statement but at the same time, I believe that simplicity is sometimes necessary.  Different technology companies focus heavily on trying to make the newest gadgets and I think they overcomplicate things sometimes.  Apple creates technology is a well designed manner that make them extremely user friendly and make the user feel intelligent or “hi-tech” when using them.  But I don’t believe every scenario has to be about limiting the number of items a person needs to achieve a specific task.  I do absolutely agree with Jonathan Ive’s statement that there has to be visual hierarchy in the creation of a product.  Specifically he talked about the light that shows the computer being powered on it being on versus off.  This light signifies something important but it’s not the most important feature, because it’s more something the user can just acknowledge.  You as the designer have to determine what it is that the user absolutely needs to see first and visually show them what they should be interacting with.

1. Has anything the designers said changed how you thought about design?

I agreed with most of the designers statements and thoughts on design as I also believe design is this ever-changing method of creating that looks to the future and works to improve people’s lives.  But I did find Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby’s perspective on design very interesting.  They know that there is a huge mass market of items being produced and designed for people but they like to reach people’s mind’s more than a space in their homes.  The way they create items simply to inspire thought is something that intrigues me and I believe that the design world and the consumer need more of that.  I believe in some ways, design has become too focused on mass manufacturing and I think sometimes the user isn’t challenged to think about anything besides wanting the product.  Maybe some designers are ok with that and plan to continue making items for the purpose of selling them but I believe design should be turning towards making the consumer think.

1. Each designer interviewed for “Objectified” defined how they see Design, how would you define design and how has that definition changed?

I define design as the method in which things or processes are created to better the lives of the people who use and interact with them.  Design takes individual needs, culture, and different academic studies into account.  After watching Objectified and thinking about what the designers said, I believe that design is becoming more thought provoking in what ways items and processes effect ourselves and the environment.  Or some designers think design should be more about getting in the heads of consumers to understand the full effect of what our designs have on them.  So just in general design seems to be moving towards the thought process behind everything than the actual creation of things.

1) Do you agree or disagree with any of the designers’ statements, why?

As I was watching through the documentary I didn’t disagree with any of the designers statements. This because I like to keep an open mind to possible influences on my own design from seasoned professionals.  I did however agree with many statements and enjoyed these looks on design. The first statement I agreed with was when Dan Formosa said that when you design you need to design for the outlier. If you approach something like this then everyone is covered. I really agreed with this because it is a great way to approach design. You are designing for as many people as possible so designing with the outlier in mind really ensures that your product or service will succeed. The next designer statement that resonated with me was when Jonathan Ives said when something is done right, it “almost feels undesigned.” I really agreed with this statement and it is something that I have never really thought about before. When you think about design you want to have your creation stand out for being great but when it feels undesigned it is accomplishing just that. The last statement that I really enjoyed was when the french brothers Irwin and Ronan Bouroullec were talking about design being related to creating music because they both include the need of harmony. I enjoyed this because it is a great way to look at design and is something I have never thought of before personally.

2) Has anything the designers said changed how you thought about design?

Many of the things that the designers have said about design have opened up new ways of looking at design that I never have before. One of the main statements that changed how I thought about design was when Karim Rashid was talking about his problem with the longevity of objects and the materials used to make them. He thinks that if any product has a shelf life of 11 months or less, it should be all 100% disposable. He questions why anything is built to be permanent.This really got me thinking because this is never something you think about when designing new products. As a designer you want your products and creations to look new, clean, quality, and timeless and often the materials used for this are ones that are produced to last forever. This just accounts for a lot of waste when the latest and greatest product comes around and replaces the one you are currently using. This is definitely something I am going to keep in mind when designing and analyzing designs I see in everyday life.

3) Each designer interviewed for “Objectified” defined how they see Design, how would you define design and how has that definition changed?

I would define design as creation for the improvement of the overall good. This is because whether you are designing a visual or physical art form you are trying to evoke emotion from your audience and improve society in one way or another, however you see fit. I don’t really think my definition of design has changed but the way that I look at design and the materials used has definitely. The longevity of design has never been something I have payed much attention to. After hearing what these designers had to say I will definitely be taking into account the longevity of my design and the materials used.

 

Seamus Corr

Objectified Response

1. Do you agree or disagree with any of the designer’s statements, why?

There were a lot of designer’s opinions that I do fully agree with. Designer Dieter Rams really stood out to me, however. He stated that design should be a multitude of things. Design should be innovative, honest, useful, long-lived, environmentally friendly, minimalistic, etc. I agree with this quote the most, especially in the sense of designing for new media.

2. Has anything the designers said changed how you thought about design?

Again, Dieter Rams absolutely changed how I thought about design. He stated that new designs are thoughtless and arbitrary. Alongside his thought of good design being minimalistic, I’ve always catered my work to minimalism. I feel getting the point across rather than adding flashy details is much more effective.

3. Each designer interviewed defined how they see Design, how would you define design and how has that definition changed?

I view design as a media for relaying a message. Personally, I would much rather view a poster for an event rather than read a short article about the event. Before I started my education at RMU, I tended to create very flashy and colorful designs that would grab the attention of a viewer through color and boldness. Now I believe that good design captures attention and retains attention through sleek and much more thought out placement of information.

Objectified overall has changed my opinion and thoughts on design, both as a whole and in the details of what makes good design. My beginning definition or thought of design was the idea of making something look interesting in order to sell or display. Mainly only thinking of the products that caught my eye. Instead, through many of Objectified ‘s featured designers statements, it made me not only broaden my view of design but also focus on what successful design is.

Throughout Objectified there are many designers that throw out statements that seem slightly outrageous, but instead requires a bit of thought in order to understand. From thoughts on how design should look to thoughts on how design should live. One of the first statements that I noticed was the idea that a designer should focus on the extremes rather than the normal, when it comes to potential customers. Originally I would have said that you would want to focus on the majority of your consumers, making the product work best for them. Now I realize that design for the extremes, it can make a designer focus on possible problems the design will run in to. For example if you are making an app and focus on designing it for older people, it can make the designer create it more intuitively so that the app is read well for the extreme part of their consumer spectrum. Another big idea discussed by several of the designers in Objectified was on the lifecycle of a product. My idea before would to make a product live for as long as you can, long lasting materials, and a design that would look appealing for years to come. While it is discussed that a product should stand the test of time when it comes to the looks of the product, it also is said that each product should think about after it is thrown out. This is mainly focused on material selection, predicting how long the consumer might use the product before throwing it out. Karim Rashid specified that he would was his phone to be made of cardboard because of how often they are replaced. This radically changed my thought of design and made me think design as a whole lifetime instead of just getting it to a customer. Finally, it was stated that a design should make a user think of how they will apply it to their life rather than make them marvel on how much work was put in by designers and engineers. At first I always thought it was interesting to think about how a designer or engineer thought of a solution to a problem. Instead this statement made me look back at products that I thought had great design, making me realize that I never thought about the design and just applied it to my life.

Objectified changed my opinion and thoughts on design in many ways broadening my vision by now looking at extremes of the consumer, to the lifecycle of a product. Also showing me the keys to what makes good design through simple intuitiveness. Many of the statements seemed off putting at first but soon changed my thoughts of how design works.