Monday, August 30, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Story of Stuff
In this video, we as the viewers are forced to see the reality behind the process of stuff. It might be quite cynical in perhaps an extreme level, but what Leonard was trying to say is the ironic truth of it.
Leonard mentioned first, that the system consists of extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal, which are known as the material economy. I've known and understand these processes, however, what came next was what surprised me. The cycle doesn't end just there. There are many other explanations in between, and they are not really pleasant.
In the extraction phase, Leonard nicknamed it as "natural resource exploitation", and it's basically "trashing the planet". I agree with Leonard that the world has been damaging the planet too much, by chopping down the trees, extracting metals, bottled water and wiping the animals. And I believe that the problem Leonard mentioned about the US isn't happening only in the US, but everywhere in the world. And the abuse of the third world countries resources is unreasonable. It is the resource which belongs to other countries and the US isn't entitled to it.
In the production phase, Leonard emphasized how chemical substance are used, resulting in a toxic in and toxic out. I do know that chemical substance are used in production system, but I don't think that they are all as bad as Leonard said it. Some materials can't be processed without chemical substance, and that is why corporate tested those chemical substance for their side effect and safeties. They are not necessarily bad. But we do need to do something about the pollution caused by production process.
In the distribution phase, Leonard talked about the hidden cost within a product. She mentioned how she bought a radio for $4.99 and how ridiculously cheap it was. She claimed that the she didn't pay for the radio. It was the third world countries who paid for it by their natural resources, and their underaged employees. I don't fully agree with her arguments, though it is very ironic how children has to work for such small amount of money, and how cheap things are in other third world countries. However, by mass producing a product, the cost of it will be reduced. Especially when the production uses machines, which saves time and labour cost.
Leonard called consumption as the heart of the system, and how desperate both the government and the corporations thrive to protect it. Leonard was perhaps most cynical in explaining this phase. She mentioned that consumerity in the world were designed after WWII, to help boost the economy. Computers are changing so fast, people throw away computers in the same speed. However, she overlooked the fact that more advanced technology are designed to be more sustainable. It uses less energy, parts that can be recycled and so on. And you can't really say that consumerity is bad. Imagine if people stop buying products, what would happen to the employees? Maybe the resources can be preserved more, but what about those people in the third world countries who struggle to earn money.
And that brings us to the last phase, disposal. As mentioned before, corporation have been researching for years about sustainability. By using material which can be recycled, we can reduce the waste.
I think Leonard explained things very well in this video. It was very simple and easy to understand with the help of graphics, a bit cynical though. But don't be fooled by the cuteness of the graphics. Hear the ironic truth about the underside of production and consumption patterns.
Leonard mentioned first, that the system consists of extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal, which are known as the material economy. I've known and understand these processes, however, what came next was what surprised me. The cycle doesn't end just there. There are many other explanations in between, and they are not really pleasant.
In the extraction phase, Leonard nicknamed it as "natural resource exploitation", and it's basically "trashing the planet". I agree with Leonard that the world has been damaging the planet too much, by chopping down the trees, extracting metals, bottled water and wiping the animals. And I believe that the problem Leonard mentioned about the US isn't happening only in the US, but everywhere in the world. And the abuse of the third world countries resources is unreasonable. It is the resource which belongs to other countries and the US isn't entitled to it.
In the production phase, Leonard emphasized how chemical substance are used, resulting in a toxic in and toxic out. I do know that chemical substance are used in production system, but I don't think that they are all as bad as Leonard said it. Some materials can't be processed without chemical substance, and that is why corporate tested those chemical substance for their side effect and safeties. They are not necessarily bad. But we do need to do something about the pollution caused by production process.
In the distribution phase, Leonard talked about the hidden cost within a product. She mentioned how she bought a radio for $4.99 and how ridiculously cheap it was. She claimed that the she didn't pay for the radio. It was the third world countries who paid for it by their natural resources, and their underaged employees. I don't fully agree with her arguments, though it is very ironic how children has to work for such small amount of money, and how cheap things are in other third world countries. However, by mass producing a product, the cost of it will be reduced. Especially when the production uses machines, which saves time and labour cost.
Leonard called consumption as the heart of the system, and how desperate both the government and the corporations thrive to protect it. Leonard was perhaps most cynical in explaining this phase. She mentioned that consumerity in the world were designed after WWII, to help boost the economy. Computers are changing so fast, people throw away computers in the same speed. However, she overlooked the fact that more advanced technology are designed to be more sustainable. It uses less energy, parts that can be recycled and so on. And you can't really say that consumerity is bad. Imagine if people stop buying products, what would happen to the employees? Maybe the resources can be preserved more, but what about those people in the third world countries who struggle to earn money.
And that brings us to the last phase, disposal. As mentioned before, corporation have been researching for years about sustainability. By using material which can be recycled, we can reduce the waste.
I think Leonard explained things very well in this video. It was very simple and easy to understand with the help of graphics, a bit cynical though. But don't be fooled by the cuteness of the graphics. Hear the ironic truth about the underside of production and consumption patterns.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Design Excellence: ORWell Fluid Collection and Disposal System
This product was made to ease surgical fluid waste collection and disposal. It utilizes a single-use disposal container, which makes it convenient and sterile. It prevents the fluid waste from spilling and exposure, which is commonly found in other fluid waste products. The design itself is quite simple, easy to handle and it boasts a third of weight compared to other fluid waste system. The upside of this product I found is the portability which makes it effectively used in hospital.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Don Norman: Emotional Design
In this video, David Norman discusses the emotional response people have when they interact with products. The responses can be categorized into three levels, visceral, behavioral and reflective. Visceral response is basically the impression we have related to the product's aesthetic values. Behavioral response is how people feel about the product's utility and usability. And reflective response, which relates to our personal identity, how we think a product will fit in for us.
Alessi is a very good example for this subject. Alessi creates household products we can easily find in stores such as Target or Kmart, but they brought it up to the next level by making it pleasant looking as if it's a piece of art. The Phillipe Starck gold lemon juicer noted in the video wasn't a juicer at all. It even comes with a warning that it's not meant to be used. But Norman highlighted how pleasant it was to have the juicer, even thought it's not functioning, just sitting there in his house.
The mini cooper car is very popular. It's fun, playful, colourful, cute, stands out, to put it in two words, aesthetically pleasant. I've ridden on a mini cooper, and truthfully speaking, it's not comfortable at all. It's cramped, it's hard to get into the back seat, it doesn't have much storage area, yet I still forgive it just because it's a mini cooper.
I was very entertained by the video, and I completely agree with Norman's view on aesthetically good design. One of the reasons why I chose to study Industrial Design and not Engineering is because I care more about the aesthetic feature rather than the functional feature. I do believe that functional features are important, but the first impression I have on a product is always the aesthetic value. Even if a product has a very advanced technology and usability, I wouldn't buy it if I don't see it as a piece of design, rather a functional junk.
I believe that it is our job as a designer to create a functional product and enjoyable at the same time. Or as in Philippe Starck gold juicer case, it might as well be only aesthetically enjoyable but not functional. By making a product more enjoyable, the users can interact more with it, and develop perhaps a bond with the product. We might be having trouble at work, but when we come home and see a product we really like sitting on the table, we develop a smile and think of how fun it is to use the product. This kind of experience should be something we consider when we design a product, the pleasantness of the product.
Remember, we're designers, not scientists.
Alessi is a very good example for this subject. Alessi creates household products we can easily find in stores such as Target or Kmart, but they brought it up to the next level by making it pleasant looking as if it's a piece of art. The Phillipe Starck gold lemon juicer noted in the video wasn't a juicer at all. It even comes with a warning that it's not meant to be used. But Norman highlighted how pleasant it was to have the juicer, even thought it's not functioning, just sitting there in his house.
The mini cooper car is very popular. It's fun, playful, colourful, cute, stands out, to put it in two words, aesthetically pleasant. I've ridden on a mini cooper, and truthfully speaking, it's not comfortable at all. It's cramped, it's hard to get into the back seat, it doesn't have much storage area, yet I still forgive it just because it's a mini cooper.
I was very entertained by the video, and I completely agree with Norman's view on aesthetically good design. One of the reasons why I chose to study Industrial Design and not Engineering is because I care more about the aesthetic feature rather than the functional feature. I do believe that functional features are important, but the first impression I have on a product is always the aesthetic value. Even if a product has a very advanced technology and usability, I wouldn't buy it if I don't see it as a piece of design, rather a functional junk.
I believe that it is our job as a designer to create a functional product and enjoyable at the same time. Or as in Philippe Starck gold juicer case, it might as well be only aesthetically enjoyable but not functional. By making a product more enjoyable, the users can interact more with it, and develop perhaps a bond with the product. We might be having trouble at work, but when we come home and see a product we really like sitting on the table, we develop a smile and think of how fun it is to use the product. This kind of experience should be something we consider when we design a product, the pleasantness of the product.
Remember, we're designers, not scientists.
Monday, August 2, 2010
David Kelley on Human-Centered Design
It's actually really hard to believe that this video was made in 2002, seeing how innovative and futuristic those designs were. All the designs were each heavily influenced by humanity, all of the designs were meant to ease human in their activities. Kelley has proven that designs are quite human centered in a sense, and that the presentation of the product itself is very important.
Prada - Liquid Crystal
I was very impressed by the changing room idea, and I believe that it will become a pioneer in the fashion world. By using the scanner and posting the information of the item on screen, it will help customers knowing the item. It's also great that they implemented the scanner inside the changing room, with a touch screen option. And along with that, the idea of having the liquid crystal mirror was truly creative. That way, customers can actually know every detail of what is it that they're buying.
Museum - Screen
The moving screen inside the museum was a fairly simple idea, but I believe that it adds enjoyments for visitors for the museum to see other people's thoughts, and also speaking their own thoughts.
Cubicle
This was another project I found very interesting. When I saw the cubicle what came to my mind was that it was going to make working more fun. And I believe that a person's mood very much affect the way they work. So having a happy worker is much better then a grumpy worker. And the withering flowers are just icing on the cake.
Spyfish
I don't like diving, but I love the beauty of nature. And when I saw the spyfish, i feel like now I don't have to watch discovery channel so much anymore. I think it is a great design for people like me, who would like to see the life inside the water, without having to dive. It also gives a new option for people to enjoy life underwater without having to disturb or pollute the actual ecosystem.
It is very refreshing to see a designer such as Kelly who, not only has a great sense of humour, but also cares for the environment. Design not only needs to be aesthetically well made, but it also has to function well for humanity, and I think that Kelley has set an example of how to make good working designs. And it opens our eyes to the many possibilities that can be made into designs by linking the designs to the changing and different needs for people from different places and times.
Prada - Liquid Crystal
I was very impressed by the changing room idea, and I believe that it will become a pioneer in the fashion world. By using the scanner and posting the information of the item on screen, it will help customers knowing the item. It's also great that they implemented the scanner inside the changing room, with a touch screen option. And along with that, the idea of having the liquid crystal mirror was truly creative. That way, customers can actually know every detail of what is it that they're buying.
Museum - Screen
The moving screen inside the museum was a fairly simple idea, but I believe that it adds enjoyments for visitors for the museum to see other people's thoughts, and also speaking their own thoughts.
Cubicle
This was another project I found very interesting. When I saw the cubicle what came to my mind was that it was going to make working more fun. And I believe that a person's mood very much affect the way they work. So having a happy worker is much better then a grumpy worker. And the withering flowers are just icing on the cake.
Spyfish
I don't like diving, but I love the beauty of nature. And when I saw the spyfish, i feel like now I don't have to watch discovery channel so much anymore. I think it is a great design for people like me, who would like to see the life inside the water, without having to dive. It also gives a new option for people to enjoy life underwater without having to disturb or pollute the actual ecosystem.
It is very refreshing to see a designer such as Kelly who, not only has a great sense of humour, but also cares for the environment. Design not only needs to be aesthetically well made, but it also has to function well for humanity, and I think that Kelley has set an example of how to make good working designs. And it opens our eyes to the many possibilities that can be made into designs by linking the designs to the changing and different needs for people from different places and times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)