Ames' syllabi

Tori Flick

Designing For New Media

Objectified

 

It is astonishing to think that from the moment you wake up, almost everything you interact with within your day has been designed, and has been designed specifically for a purpose. Even things you wouldn’t think to have any sort of relevance or significance such as a post-it note, someone designed a post-it note with a specific function in mind.

One thing one of the designers said that I did not 100% agree with was that no concerns for an individual person are to be taken. Details surrounded who they are were not to be accounted for, but instead the “extremes” must be taken into consideration and those extremes, whether it be something like slow and fast, those are the details that matter; everything in the middle are not as significant.

One of the designers spoke of the goal to redesign tools and objects to better fit the needs and functions of everyone, looking at things such as garden shears or even pliers and measuring how they feel and if there are any small details to improve upon. The goal is to redesign things, with people not always realizing that it has been redesigned for a specific reason. This surprised me in a good way, because out of all of the things I interact with daily I never stop to think about how it was intentionally crafted to meet a certain need or purpose.

A key point I was highly in agreeance with emphasized the importance of recognizing and noticing a product for its attributes and form, so that the inevitable design of the product makes sense, and is not just shapes and things, but instead, in a way seems undesigned because of how natural the form seems.

Another thing to consider in design is that not everything lasts forever, so what will become of your designed object once it has served its purpose and no longer functions to standard? Some products may be made with environmentally-friendly and biodegradable materials, whereas some products may have been built to last and will not be capable of doing the same. This must also be considered by the designer.

Design is comprehensibly just a search for form. The form of how something should look to still achieve the same effect and functionality needs to be understood fully and processed. Design cannot exist without a form of some sort being taken, so the priority then becomes what is the most sensible and constructive form to take? It depends object to object what form is necessary, and what form will work for everyone, not just the medium margin. If a handle of something is designed too thin and someone suffering from arthritis can’t use the handle, then a redesign must take place to include that “group” as well. Design is all inclusive, and specifically a practice to make the lives of everyone a little easier, even if the users themselves are unaware.

I agree with the designers in that design can be improved upon, and that it must possess certain attributes. Certain attributes that one of the designer’s specificed that I agree with is that good design must be utilitarian, unobstructive, honest, and easy to understand. Some other statements that I agreed with is that graphic design is not fine arts. I myself wasn’t able to discern that until after one of the designers made that distinguishment on camera. Other statements that I agreed with is that design must be created in an appropriate environment where everything works well, is organized well, that elicits us to want to interact with the design, and should also elicit nostalgia in the user/viewer (one of the examples used in the film was “That’s the chair that dad always sat in”).

One other thing that I did not discern too well about design that I learned on the film is that design is something that will be mass-produced, and that new design doesn’t last. Even though I did have a basic understanding of such, I did not think about it as deeply as the film went into both subjects.

Because of this film, my definition of design has actually changed. Originally, I was still thinking about design as in the fine arts sense; design is a composition of harmonizing or disharmonizing elements that represent an idea. Though it does technically hold true even in the graphic design sense, it was still only a sliver of the definition as a whole, and my understanding of design has expanded greatly because of Objectify and the designer’s interviewed. After seeing the film, my new definition for design is the harmonization of elements that allow the user to easy access of the product functions and the ability to have the user learn about the product in a thoughtless manner.

Most of the designers were of the opinion that design should always have a purpose, regardless of what type of design it is. I agree with this to an extent. I think that some kinds of design should always have a purpose. But I think there are times that it’s okay for design to simply be pretty. Things that are nice to look at but do not otherwise have a purpose are not necessarily pointless. It’s important to people to be exposed to visually appealing things. Sometimes just looking nice is a design’s purpose. Others may disagree with me about this, but whether we all admit it or not, we all enjoy things that look good. Many of the things we do in our everyday lives revolve around this desire for things to look nice. Everything from brushing our hair to cleaning our houses reflects this need for our lives to be visually pleasing.

The way the people in the video talk about design didn’t change the way I think about it too much. To me, design is something that either makes you think or makes you feel something. My opinion hasn’t changed since watching the video, but I do think it has made me aware of more types of design to include in that definition. I am so used to thinking of design as something that happens on screens and on paper, and the video was a nice reminder that design extends to things such as furniture and tools. Purpose is definitely more important in those types of design.

I think design’s level of purpose varies among different types of design.

It was very interesting watching real interaction designers at work in “Objectified.” Prior to the movie, I never would have thought of furniture as a means of interaction, let alone something that takes intense design work. However, there was one comment made about a man who does not make uncomfortable seating, but very clearly made uncomfortable looking plastic chairs. Other than that main comment, I did not particularly disagree with any of the designers. They were extremely insightful on how everything needs to be functional, yet personal. Without a personal touch, the design becomes meaningless. I also found it intriguing how one of the designers had branded his own appearance. Usually when thinking of design work, a person will think of a designer’s personal style. This man made something totally different of that; once seeing him, the image of him will always remain in memory. The movie definitely opened my eyes to more of the possibilities of design. Design becomes a brand, a statement, a part of every day life, and eventually trash. As a beginning designer, I never once thought of my work one day ending up in a landfill, or crumpled up in a trash can to never be looked at again. It was mentioned that design should get better with age, and be able to handle wear, and I couldn’t agree more. I don’t want to see somebody just throw away something I worked my hardest on. Moving forward, that is something I plan to keep in mind and work on achieving. “Objectified” opened my eyes a bit more to the endless possibilities of design.

Objectified, to give expression to (as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others.  Giving expression to a form or product is exactly what interaction designers do, so it really intrigued me that this was the title of the film. As a designer, I was guilty of viewing design as “making things pretty.” But after watching this film, I realized that design is in every aspect of a persons’ life and daily interactions. For instance, I am typing on my computer right now, someone designed this computer and every aspect of this computer to make my experience enjoyable from touch to visuals to usability. I, also, did not realize how quickly I judge something, whether it be a product or someone’s clothing choices that day, I judge it immediately on if it looks simple to use or if I would purchase it. During the movie, they said that sometimes the more simple designs are better because they promote easy usability. I completely agree with that, but I also believe that the simpler designs in this culture promote a sleeker image and often times make people look like they are higher end, which is something people strive for today. For example, Jane Harrington, who’s a color styling manager in PPG Industries’ auto-paint unit, stated that the most popular car color for the last five years has been the color white. Why? Because it is simple, understated, and looks more expensive than other colors; a look that most people strive for in today’s society. Which brings us to a point in the movie where there was a statement about creating an environment that will make people FEEL good about themselves and their life. Here’s where it gets tricky, the film emphasizes “wearing in not wearing out,” which means you want people to feel good for just a short time while using your product, but you want them to feel better and better overtime while using your product. You want them to have emotional experiences, which relates to the psychological aspect of design. In essence, you do not even want your customers or users to think about the design at all. As Objectified put it, “design dissolving in behavior.” If users are truly enjoying their experiences, they will not be focusing on the design or what is wrong because they will be so focused on the task that they are completing with your design.  You need to create something that is easy to use and timeless so that your product doesn’t end up in a landfill, and if you know that it is just a temporary product you really have to think about what will happen when its time is done. I never really thought about the after, and this movie really made me think about the after. You can not just keep making and making and making with out thinking about the lasting effects of your product. The “what’s going to happen not the what’s happening.” So, as a whole, I learned a lot about the numerous aspects of design, the emphasis on experiences and sustainability, and the after effects of your product.

In class we watched a documentary that focused on interaction design through it’s progress and evolution and influence with the user. The documentary featured several well-known and respected designers who used interaction design in various different forms. There were a few different points made throughout the film that I either agreed or disagreed or made me think a little harder. One point which was very strongly projected was that design is the search for form; and that form follows function. I suppose that in its simplest, most easy to understand terms, that yes, design is the search for form. Whether it be digital, traditional, interaction; design is a consistent search for a an answer, or a solution to a problem. I thought that the statement that form follows function was interesting, mostly just in the wording. I’ve never thought of it before, but it makes complete sense now, that any object, item or idea has a function and a purpose. If the form can’t fit the function or doesn’t allow for the function to occur anymore, then it’s overall design is purposeless.
One aspect of the documentary that really opened my eyes was the recreation/redesign of common household items. For example, in the beginning, there was a focus on a set of hand trimmers. I didn’t realize how many steps needed to be taken. It starts with finding a problem or finding a task that could be made easier. Once this is established there is a long experimentation process where the team finds the best solution. From here it is executed with 3d modeling and prototypes to make sure every aspect is covered before the product is ready for production. I have so much more appreciation for this area and how much brain power it takes to not just create, but recreate in a more positive way. I found it kind of sad that this type of design and thinking isn’t as common. Because of the level of intensity and hours spent, this is very financially taxing and a lot of businesses and companies cannot afford to hire people in these fields. Because money is an issue, we as a society choose to settle with the cheapest alternative even if the design and function suffer.