Video Refection - Objectified

Design can be intangible, like softwares, websites, systems.. but for us industrial designers, tangible designs still play the most parts. Colour, texture, feels, and most importantly, the shape, its form, because the products you choose reflects who you are. In products, the form speaks. It can be arguably said that designers spend most of the design process designing the form, going back and forth making prototypes, testing it out, reiterating. It is a long and tiring process. When I am designing for the lsat project for instance, I find it very hard to find a form that fits that particular design, there are disagreement between group members. This shows that people have different thoughts on what form/shape suits what purpose/design/style, and I believe that there's no one perfect answer to that. Furthermore, it is becoming more and more evident that the concept of 'form follows function' does not apply anymore. Due to the technological era, everything is hidden under a chip. Phones and TVs now flat, there's no special shape to them. However, an argument to this would be the fact that every design detail has to have a reason to be there. If it's not there, would it still be functional? Would it make any difference? If it doesn't make any difference, then it could be omitted. But I have to say, Apple is quite brave putting forward a block of aluminium in the market; the iPhone - it couldn't be simpler. It's flat, there's nothing except for a few buttons for locking/unlocking, volume and SIM card. I wonder what they were thinking when they introduced that into the market, did they think it would work out great or were they just testing their luck? But they're probably not selling the form, rather the technology? It was a breakthrough for the company, and for the century, either way.

One part of the video that really is very inspirational i think, is the 'good design' list by Dieter Rams:

good design should be innovative

good design should make a product useful

good design is aesthetic design

good design should make a product understandable

good design is honest

good design is unobtrusive

good design is long lived

good design is consistent in every detail

good design is environmentally friendly

good design is as little as possible

(... all of which Apple has achieved. The last part there relates back to what I have said in the previous paragraph)

A good design should fit in everyday lives, so subtly that people don't even realized it has been designed, something that just had to be there, as if it was born with the world.

Another thing that I liked from the video is when Jonathan Ive mentioned how important it is to keep asking 'WHY', and by doing so we are constantly designing. I totally agree, and rewind back to when we were kids, we like to ask 'why', and this is how we learn things, it's how we learn at the fastest rate.

A very interesting aspect raised by the video was the price of good design. As we know, good design by famous designers costs a lot. They should be accessible, but it is 'designed', therefore it's more expensive. This contradicts the whole concept of mass-production by industrial designers. If there's no one who can afford it, it can't be mass produced. But people has been so accustomed to the belief that when something costs more, it is of better quality.. and in most cases, it's true. We have been taught to minimize cost for the products we're designing, but it's just to maximize profits, not to make the product cheaper so that it's available to everyone. Even though in both cases it's minimizing cost, the end result is different. I think it's quite important that we move from profit-driven to focusing simply on improving the society's lives. It is going to be hard, and possibly impossible..

Video Reflection no.3

The "Age of Stupid" video gave an alarming reminder that global warming is a grave problem, and it can only be solved when everyone works hand in hand, together. I am surprised to know that it's been 50 long years since people know how to convert energy from renewable resources, but they didn't opt for it. If they have started decades ago, we would probably be good in the 'point of stabilization' right now, as Mark Lynas put it, the author of "Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet". But now that we are already heading in that direction, there is a possibility for us to reach that stability point by 2015.

I perceive global warming as a serious issue, however, it seems that I didn't contribute (yet) to making the world a greener and cooler place. In the video, the archivist said that "we pretend global warming didn't happen". I totally don't agree on that. We all know that global warming is the current hot topic everyone's talking about, companies are taking profits of. I think we just don't have a clear picture of how to do it. A step already taken is probably to start this green trend. Next step would be to involve everyone, which is the hardest part. I don't know why some people are actually against wind energy (as shown in the video), the wind turbines looks so nice too! I would not mind and would actually support the idea of using any kind of renewable resources.

However, another significant contribution is our energy consumption. According to the video, flying contributes a large portion to our carbon footprint. But considering globalization, it's just not possible to not use airplanes. Instead, I might suggest a simpler task to do at hand, that we can do everyday. Or may be designers can design 'friendly' aeroplanes that doesn't have as much emissions, so people are catered for, and at the same time, the environment is saved.

Additionally, various media have warned us about global warming; from newspapers to magazines, documentaries to movies. Take "The Day After Tomorrow" as an example. This 2004 movie depicts the catastrophic effects of global warming. Such a clear picture of what MIGHT happen. Disasters everywhere. Which is happening right now. Earthquakes in New Zealand, tsunami in Japan, floods and many more. This made me think of the 2012 prediction, when the world will come to an end..

Video reflection no.2

I have to admit I do buy bottled water. The reasons? Like what Annie Leonard said in the video "The Story of Bottled Water", I think it has less contaminants, more hygienic and it tastes better. I am convinced bottled water is more hygienic because that's what the companies claim. But one thing I'm always sure of, bottled water tastes BETTER than tap. Tap water has a typical tap water taste, and I'm confident enough that I can differentiate between the two in a taste test. Another reason I drink bottled water is because we Indonesians do not drink from our taps in Indonesia. Tap water in Indonesia is claimed dirty, so we drink from the gallons. Because of this culture, I am hesitant to drink from taps, unless it's filtered. I use Brita at home, but it's not that effective, I can still taste the tap water taste, but I just drink it anyways - yes, I know this is kind of psychological.

I believe that all bottled water - Mount Franklin, Fiji, Pump, Evian, and others, are the same, although sometimes the taste might differ slightly. I wouldn't pay extra dollars for an Evian, unless I'm in a place where it doesn't offer anything else. The decision lies simply on the packaging and brand loyalty. Some brands are just too overpriced, like Evian and Equil. How can water be so expensive? I know pure water is getting harder to find, but other brands don't cost as much! Therefore, I think the factor that makes bottled water so expensive is the bottle.

One aspect of bottled water that I was made aware of a couple of years ago is the bottle itself. It takes so much energy to make it and recycle it. People were encouraged not to use plastic (bags, bottles, etc.). But after that I heard about bottles made from corn, so plastic is degradable and also last week's video reflection about recycling. With all these knowledge and resources we have, wouldn't it be okay to manufacture bottles? Anyways bottles are made with only one material (two with the label) so it's not as complex as electronics.

Business organizations have always concentrate on making lots of profits, they make something new every couple of months. For example, a couple of years ago, Nokia, they offered new phones every 3 months before iPhone and Blackberry came by. Now probably not - they focused more on having quality products that would compare with iPhone and BB. Even apple who claims their products to be environmentally friendly and technologically in front, commits to have a new or improved product every year; and people will buy it for sure. How is this environmentally friendly? And how does this prove the point that their products are good enough to last for years?

As designers it is really important to think about the product's life cycle especially its manufacturing and end of life, although the 'use' phase is the one that contributes most to carbon footprint. Products like disposable cameras are really bad for the environment. I don't understand why cameras have to be disposed of after one time use. It may be cheaper to buy than a real camera, but the environment is paying more for this. And it's this kind of thing that we need to ban in the design industry.

Video Reflection 1 : Giving Packaging a New Life

Watch video here.

I know that recycling is carried out here in Australia; in residential areas, recreational areas and some shopping malls, different coloured bins are provided for recycling purposes. But I never knew how they recycle and process it back to a new product. No one ever explained, and the products out there don't convince us that they're recycled. Certainly, if they're recycled, the company would be proud of it and they would inform about it on the packaging. I've only seen '5¢ refund for collection in SA'. This certainly encourages the people in SA to recycle. But what about other parts of the world? Why only SA?

One thing I remembered when watching the video - people say plastics cannot be recycled, and they take hundreds of years to decompose. That's why now, they (example, UNSW bookshop) use paper bags "to save the environment" and supermarkets (like Coles and Woolworths) encourage buyers to use cloth bags instead of plastic bags. But since plastics can be recycled, what's so wrong about using plastic bags? And there's still a lot of plastic bottles and products out there...

We all know that our beloved Mother Earth is running out of resources, and recycling is one way to help prevent that. In Germany, recycled paper accounts for 60% in making new paper, recycled steel provides around 40% of the raw material, and probably more than 80% of glass is re-cycled. I say it is extremely possible to increase these numbers to 100%, so new materials are not needed anymore. All other countries should also learn and invest in recycling factories because it's extremely useful and we do need it.

Also, sometimes people are confused about the bins. The bins are usually divided into paper bins and container bins. However, many products are made with more than one material and when people throw it away, they don't want to deal with it anymore. Other times, it's just impossible to tear it apart. A few days ago, I threw a book with steel binds into the paper bin, I also threw cardboard boxes with sticky tapes. This shows that the recycling system is not well thought/planned/designed yet. I know that in the recycling factories, it will be accurately, at lightning speed, sorted out.

But I believe there will be a better way of doing this whole system of recycling, example, an underground tunnel system which automatically sort out every rubbish that we throw and connects it to the factory or incinerator. This way, rubbish is not a problem anymore. In apartments for example, there are recycling bins on every level. So probably they bring the bins down every few days, but there are 20+ levels. So inconvenient, so troublesome. Therefore I strongly believe that there are opportunities for designers, business people and others in this area.

Seymour Powell: Designing Dream Machines

CFAAV 745.2/26

It's quite amazing how big companies like Seymour Powell also started their products by surveying the target market and brainstorming, which is the first step we're supposed to do whenever we have a design assignment.

The brainstorming session has no limits to it, so they just think and write down whatever things they want the market to sell. After that they choose the most useful and creative ideas out of all the ideas, and narrowing it down one by one. At this stage, they still don't know if it's plausible or not. Then, they sketch their concept ideas in less than 3 hours. After choosing the one concept that they think is the best, they make the model, ask other people's opinions and improving it over and over again. Up until the point where they're satisfied with it, they then make the real model. After that, they brought it to the market and put it on the shelf, then ask the marketing manager whether he likes it or not, whether it has its "personality" or character that distinguish it from the others. (It's the X-factor that leads us to buying the things we buy. X-factor is "Do I like it?", "Do I want it?")

In short:
Brainstorm > narrow the ideas > draw concept ideas > narrow the concept ideas > make model > make the real thing (after all the improvements until satisfied) > test it on the market (ask consumers what they feel about it) > go on production (if results are good).

For some of the projects, they need to survey their target market. So, for example, to design the Indian scooter, one of them went to India and observe, ask and investigate what the consumers buy and want, what they consider as good (the video shows that India has a different definition of sleek as angular and sharp, which is different from what Seymour Powell think of it). Then, they do all the brainstorming stage and went back to India to ask if they will like it or not, what they think about it. Then it goes on and on until the production stage.

What I learn from this video is that all designers start of by brainstorming and sketching their concept ideas, and the most important part is to ask other people's opinion, especially the target market. As designers, we have to receive whatever opinions are being given, so that we can improve our designs, because in the end, we are designing for the consumer and they're the one who's going to buy our products.

So in conclusion, designers work for consumers?

Annie Leonard: The Story of Stuff

http://storyofstuff.com/

Most of us don't know how the system really works, because no one teaches us about it. All we know is that we're using too much resources, and it's running out. (Although in the past decade we have been taught of recycling).

What Annie Leonard says is absolutely true - we don't know how much resources we use a day, how many people in this system paid with their future because they're forced to, etc. What's worst is that advertisements tell us that we're "wrong", except that they're the ones who's at fault for only showing us the shopping part, and not the extraction and production parts.

Also the national happiness fact that it has been declining is an interesting one. My father told me before about his childhood, and it sounds VERY different from my childhood. I didn't think about it very much, but now I know the reason why - because we choose stuff over families and friends. Some people think that stuffs can make them happy. May be. But not as happy as those without stuffs, surprisingly. Take the example of poor people, sometimes they look happier than we do. Why? Because those people have strong bonds between themselves.

Moreover, it kind of makes me feel guilty when she says, "... these (industrial) designers are so opened about it. They actually discussed how fast can they make stuff break but still leaves the consumer have enough faith in the product to go buy another one". But I realized that I am not them, so I don't have to feel guilty. And what I need to do is change this "System of Crisis".

Ross Lovegrove: Organic Designs

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ross_lovegrove_shares_organic_designs.html

To be honest, this is one of the few inspirational talks I've heard. It is an emotional talk, and to me it seems like he's not having an easy time talking about it because it's a hard thing to explain why he is so into nature's organic design and his passion, although he enjoyed it. It's also very unbelievably incredible how he sticks to his philosophy of nature, no matter what people think. He doesn't care about standards, he just wants to take those "inspired-by-nature dreams" home. He's trying his best and reaching for his dreams.

His concept of DNA (Design/Nature/Art) is the thing that conditions his life, and based on this, he designs. His design of the Ty Nant water bottle looks different from the others, and its form touches people's soul and emotion just like what he said at the start of the talk about what he wants to talk about. However, I personally think that what makes that bottle special is the fact that it fits every hand (and he said that every bottle is different) with its unique form. Another very interesting design is the future car - no engine, everything's holistically integrated, less material, sustainable, aesthetically pleasing and useful both as a car and a street lamp. A very unique and thoughtful design.

In short, Ross Lovegrove aims for a fat-free, healthy and efficient products - using less materials and different and more unique forms. He believes that the most beautiful forms are found in nature, and only nature, and so he tries to learn and apply it to his designs.

Yves Behar: Designing Objects that Tell Stories

http://www.ted.com/talks/yves_behar_on_designing_objects_that_tell_stories.html

What Behar focused on was values - creating and keeping in mind values in work that we do, so that we can change the world, eventually. He designs things that are not only attractive or functional, but both, and he wants to satisfy the human needs and create a difference, which can be seen from the works that he's done.

"... advertising is the price companies pay for being un-original"

This statement is absolutely true. No one really thinks about why advertisements all contains the same content, and talk about the same thing. So then, keeping this in mind, Behar went to start his own company, and work not just on the skin, but on the inside, outside; the whole thing - human experience. I think all designers should have a mind-set like this, and if they do, there will be no such thing as useless design, which will help the world be a better place.

Don Norman: Emotional Design

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/don_norman_on_design_and_emotion.html

Sometimes people buy things out of their necessities. The reason for this is because a certain emotion/feeling is generated when he/she sees it and they would like to feel it again. It's different for everyone.

Don Norman explains that when we are happy, new ideas come out, we think out of the box. However, under pressure, the brain defocuses, therefore we can't really think of anything creative. He also talks about the 3 levels of brain processing - visceral (e.g. typefont, colour), behavioural (e.g. usability, understanding, feel, heft) and reflective. Furthermore, he said that emotion communicates and interprets the world. That is what I feel the most important thing in this video.

I think everything that a person buys reflects what kind of person he is, and from the objects, he would like to show his emotions. Everyone's thinking is different, that's why there are so many things in the world. That is also, I think, the reason behind 'no design is bad'.

David Kelley: Human Centered Design

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/david_kelley_on_human_centered_design.html

In the video Kelley talked about human centered design - design which takes into consideration human's behaviours and personalities. Therefore, design now has a broader definition which includes the environment and services in it.

He introduced a few designs that I've never seen and heard before, but the most interesting one was the high-tech Prada shop in New York. Careful thoughts of how to serve customers better was really evident in the design. Other examples - the Science Museum in London with its interactive walls, defibrillator, cubicle, e-magazine, Spyfish and the water recycling system, are all human-centered designs, which some of it we may have heard of, but may not have realized that it's made for the consumer to be closer to design, and that consumers are invited to relate with it.

This video is very important to designers, especially industrial designers, as it shows how advanced technology has become and how design is following the trend by incorporating technology into design. Also, it reminds industrial designers that they need to design products that are useful and accessible (reasonably priced) to the society, which makes lives easier.