Jan 24
2011
The rapid evolution of the digital world continues to change the very fabric of our culture, from massively inclusive social networking sites that have reshaped the way we interact, to tools, like CS5, HTML5, and Solidworks, that have reshaped the way we work. How will the physical world change in response to the digital? Will we continue to fill new construction "colonial style" homes with wifi and flat screens? Will our desire as a culture to embrace sentiment over content persist? Or will some of the fringe trends around modern craft increase our appreciation of the possibly fewer but more important physical objects in our lives?
How should the design of physical objects and spaces change in response to our increasingly digital world?
Sara gave the final word
In response to your question: will non-digital experiences become more or less important—i think physical experiences will be forced to become more important simply as a means of balancing the two kinds of experiences out. I think the further we push towards the digital, the more our society will simultaneous crave the opposite extreme.
Since the digital has been given so much value in our culture, I think as we design physical products and interact in physical experiences, we need to be focused on how to give those objects and experiences an equal amount of meaningful value. Doing this hinges on the idea of creating lasting value and memories from these physical experiences.
I think the way we do this as designers is by creating objects built for the long-term. We need to stop designing anything that can be considered a throw away object. When we create objects that over time people can form a meaningful connection with, they will be given the same amount of value as our digital experiences, and in my opinion hopefully more.
Since the digital world is always transforming into something new—there is no permanent state. The physical world needs to focus on lasting engagements that can be the touchpoints in our lives. We can revisit our values through these touchpoints which I think will give lasting meaning to our lives.
Monday, January 24 at 4:29pm
Carly, thanks for the first post!
Back in 1999, I was fresh out of school at my first design job, and I had the pleasure of meeting Chuck Pelly, founder of BMW Design Works. Mr Pelly was telling me how they had invested in an all digital work flow (in 1999, I hate to think how antiquated that system would look now, but must have been amazing at the time). He explained that the guys that had been designing for years had gotten incredibly efficient, but the younger designers, who did not have the experience with scale and proportion in the physical world and who were now working solely digitally, were struggling. I thought it was an interesting problem to have, to balance efficiency with gaining experience from the materials you are working with.
You are absolutely right, there is a social nature to working in a more analog form that is somehow hard to capture digitally. Max Burton, executive creative director here at frog design, and I were just talking about this. When you work hands on, impromptu critiques and feedback sessions just tend to happen. When we are deep in a project I try to stick to a twice a day print/crit session for the team which helps…. I’ve also started building in a “lo-fi” prototype stage into my projects, essentially making getting our hands dirty in the shop a bit a requirement!
That said, there are obviously amazing advantages to a digital workflow, like you said, it is about balance. Taking advantage of the positives of both, using the right tool for the right job.
Monday, January 24 at 11:41am
@Carly
I never really thought about the social aspect of a digital workflow. I love the idea of a dedicated modeling space, where you can get instant feedback and fail faster to achieve a great result.
Too many people work silently alone, without showing their process out in the open. The advent of the digital age has allowed people to easily expose their design work in progress, but it is still a laborious task to document. I recently did it for one of my projects on Core77, and it was very rewarding to have feedback and critiques from netizens all over the world.
One of my friends is actually building a more process-oriented design showcase site to rival Dribbble, which doesn’t really promote any story of your discoveries and decisions. He hopes to launch it in March, and a preview is available at http://tackup.org/. I’m super excited for it to launch. This is a prime example of how the design of physical objects has already changed in the digital world: we can choose to design publicly and achieve better results (although many choose not to).
Wednesday, January 26 at 8:02pm
There is also a flip side to this conversation. Design is essentially the art of the well crafted experience, from the way a reliable easy to use without a thought classic Braun juicer works to the joy of looking at the light reflect off the forms an Aston Martin driving down the road… much of the innovation in experience is now happening in the screen as we create ever deeper virtual and augments worlds for people to play in… but of course the physical device remains. Even as we have this virtual conversation, inspired by the classic conversation Phillip Johnson once hosted, and I think about what I’m saying to you through the digital medium, my hands still tap out this message on a physical device.
While I don’t think about the device itself, does the design play a major role for people on a subconscious level? Or is it less important? Obviously, not everything will be on screen, we will still cook, drive cars, get ready in the bathroom in the morning… and these analog experiences deserve the same amount of attention to design. Will non-digital experiences become more or less important, or the same?
Monday, January 24 at 11:50am
Sara gave the Final Word
In response to your question: will non-digital experiences become more or less important—i think physical experiences will be forced to become more important simply as a means of balancing the two kinds of experiences out. I think the further we push towards the digital, the more our society will simultaneous crave the opposite extreme.
Since the digital has been given so much value in our culture, I think as we design physical products and interact in physical experiences, we need to be focused on how to give those objects and experiences an equal amount of meaningful value. Doing this hinges on the idea of creating lasting value and memories from these physical experiences.
I think the way we do this as designers is by creating objects built for the long-term. We need to stop designing anything that can be considered a throw away object. When we create objects that over time people can form a meaningful connection with, they will be given the same amount of value as our digital experiences, and in my opinion hopefully more.
Since the digital world is always transforming into something new—there is no permanent state. The physical world needs to focus on lasting engagements that can be the touchpoints in our lives. We can revisit our values through these touchpoints which I think will give lasting meaning to our lives.
Monday, January 24 at 4:29pm
Michael, thanks for the great response! I would love to see what an all digital work flow- circa 1999- looks like…
I think the example of this website and the origin of the glass house conversations is SO relevant to your question. This site is one of my favorites because it often gets people ‘talking’ directly to one another about important, relevant, and often deep questions. At the same time, I think it is not a replacement or substitute for the original format- a multi-disciplinary group of experts getting together for a spirited conversation and meal. The magic here, as it is with so many other digital experiences, is the access. Anyone can be a part of this conversation at any time of the day or night, and that’s what sets it apart.
Getting back to your question- ‘While I don’t think about the device itself, does the design play a major role for people on a subconscious level? Or is it less important?’ I think that is very much where designers are going to have a huge role as digital technologies advance. I’m typing this response on a nearly 6-year-old Dell laptop that’s as big and clunky as you probably imagine that it is. Really, its ugly. This laptop lives around my house during the day and detracts from my space. There is such a potential for it to have a better, bigger impact- to become a beautiful part of the environment around it. I believe the same is true for other pieces of technology- phones, gps’s, media players, etc. As their role in our lives grows, we as designers need to help them integrate more seamlessly.
Wednesday, January 26 at 10:13am
Change occurs continually, but the implementation of design occurs in given environments with given objectives. The Creator sees fit to play on all variables given the intentions of the Host and the philosophical mind-share of the participating group as a whole.
My work as an Creator aims to integrate physical, digital, and non-materials in a manner that stimulates participating ideas, celebrates the Whole and the unique strengths of the Parts. I work toward answering the question, how will these parts obtain integrative use.
I like Carly’s statement, “Just because digital tools are (rapidly) evolving, doesn’t mean that we need to, or should, leave our analog tools and experiences behind.”
I think that technological developments have brought some amazing opportunities to positively change the way we live and interact.
I like your prototyping method Michael. I thrive on concepts and dialogues, but I also need to physically construct. I do not enjoy doing math or to develop the skills to do complex computations in order to build or to ensure that what I sculpt will fulfill the demands of physics. That’s where I request the help of others who have these type of strengths.
It always amazes me how much of one’s creative vision for a given project, will change in the midst of development. In my sculpture, I sometimes like to make a model, but other times I like to interact with the natural laws and the materials. My goal is to create work that reflects the interaction that I had with the sculpture in a way that influences/inspires a new type of interaction between the user and object.
In this sense, design of the physical meets design of the conceptual and interactional. Together, awesome experiences and conversations take place.
I think that there is certainly enough room for all types of creative work & objects. And, I believe that the “importance” is determined given the setting, the intentions and objectives of its users. I don’t think that the value created by digital developments will become more important or take over the role of some material objects; Unless, we Code harder! :)
Monday, January 24 at 3:54pm
Summary ( design technology into objects and spaces for a better experience and just not more functionality. )
The divide between digital and analogue has always been interesting for me. There are clear advantages to both, analog being the most direct and tangible while digital being instantaneous, lossless, and solid state to name a few.
Digital things are exciting because of its uncharted possibilities which increases by function of Moore’s law. Analog receives less attention as a result, because it’s what we’ve always known since before history.
However, I do think that the line between digital and analogue is starting to blur. Think of touchscreens, haptic feedback, motion/gesture based games, augmented reality among others. These technologies are clearly digital, but they are approaching the tangibility of their analog counterparts. Suddenly, I can hold a PDF on my hand using a tablet instead of staring at a monitor, touch icons instead of clicking them, and swing a virtual tennis racquet instead of pressing a button. All this sophistication was made possible by technological advances that enable us to display more than green dots on a CRT display.
I’m reminded of the recent discussions on skeumorphicism. While it may be taken as being ‘inauthentic’ and lacking in terms of creativity, people make them because they work well. Technology advances while people, at least biologically, remain the same. The design of digital objects and spaces are mirroring the physical world to make us feel more home.
I think that the design of physical objects and spaces should work conversely to this digital paradigm. We’ve gotten to the point where everything can be embedded with technology. This ‘smart-ification’ is well exemplified in phones. Are these phones really phones that Bell conceived? They work in completely different ways, but are functionally identical.
I think the design of physical objects and spaces should be the vector sum of the digital and analogue, in a best of both world kind of way. Infusing technology to physical objects, in more subtle ways than slapping a touch screen on its face, will result in a new breed of ‘digi-log’ objects and spaces that offer the analog tangibility with digital flexibility, without their limitations.
How should designers approach this? I think that by focusing on subtlety rather than flashy high-tech expressions and a more considered approach to making objects and spaces more connected and interactive while respecting their meaning in our lives will get us closer to a place where technology feels less like a disruptive overlay and more like oxygen.
My ideal would be the application of minimalism ethos in industrial design to crafting interactions and experiences. No interface is better than a great looking interface.
Monday, January 24 at 4:23pm
@Sara, I like you notion of the digital world changing more rapidly, so the physical one being more consistent. Is this why retro won’t die? We’ve done some internal talking about this. It is easy to download an app for $1.99 then delete, but more difficult and expensive to change your kitchen sink. So the barriers to entry make it a bit of a necessity. There is also a tendency in softwear to ship the Beta and fix it later. You don’t get the opportunity with products and architecture. It has to be right so the work flow is different.
@Dustin. You are on the money. The vision almost always alters the moment you physically start doing it. One of the benefits and drawbacks of digital workflow is that it is more cerebral, which can you objective distance but also lead to the false bubble of an academic approach. Process over result. The point of a process is to get to a result and if the end design is sun standard, the process is pointless no matter how much it gets written up in books!! That is why I encourage my trams to break something on day 1. I want to mess up assoon as possible, and learn from that. It is a bit like surfing, you can’t plan to catch a wave, you can only plan to be in the water, the rest is feeling + skill + experience.
@Rene. As a RISD student and former frog intern, any thoughts in how this is effecting design education?
Monday, January 24 at 5:47pm
I wish I could be more concise.
From a RISD perspective, there is a kind of admission to the fact that digital is here to stay. RISD, a school known for its love of craft and all things analog, appointed John Maeda, former MIT media lab director, as it’s president. Although this admission doesn’t necessarily mean acceptance.
I think that up until today, it was very clear to distinguish between analog or digital when it comes to your job / craft/ skill / metier / career. But we are at a point where computer companies sell music and book sells make e-readers. Companies, whether digital or analog, are forced to learn the other side if they don’t want to become the Blockbuster and Tower Records of their industry. And very soon, this will apply to individuals as well. People who can successfully mix the two will become increasingly at higher demand.
At least in terms of RISD’s ID department, we still maintain our three analog shops (metal/wood/model) where we excel but are increasingly feeling compelled to invest more in digital even if we don’t have any room anymore. individual laptops achieve this to a certain extent, but its really minimum effort.
It usually takes time for what happens in the industry to make it into a curriculum. Design education relies on former professionals to tell students these new development. But really, it’s up to the students to open their ears and eyes to the outside through other channels like the internet, after they’ve spent those 40 hours building a chair out of wood.
I think the problem with investing a lot of resources to become really good at something is the reluctance to admit that something new comes along to replace it. RISD has gotten so good at what it teaches, it doesn’t want to give it up to acquire other specialties. Strategically, it’s happening with the new presidency, but as long as the same instructors are teaching the same class they’ve taught for 10 years, it will take more time before students can feel it in the classroom.
As for the design education in general, I’ve only experienced two programs, but I’d say the silo-fication that benefited deep knowledge is starting to reach its limit when it comes to allowing cross-pollination.
Tuesday, January 25 at 11:47am
@Sara, I like your comment, “The physical world needs to focus on lasting engagements that can be the touchpoints in our lives. We can revisit our values through these touchpoints which I think will give lasting meaning to our lives.”
There is no getting around our physical connection to things and the value we attribute to them.
@Rene, you discussion on skeumorphicism sounds like it was fascinating. Your comment feeds my interest in the topic of the designers intention in the process of their design. You state, “The design of digital objects and spaces are mirroring the physical world to make us feel more home.”
And, your comment is thought provoking: “I think the problem with investing a lot of resources to become really good at something is the reluctance to admit that something new comes along to replace it.” In addition to that possible factor, developing a new system or improving the existing system brings with it new challenges(learning/investing in new tools) that create the awareness of risk to the systems existing stability. Change is difficult because it is difficult to identify and create change that enhances the current mode of stability without upsetting the perceived balance of that stability. You can enter a beehive tactfully without upsetting the bees or you can enter it like a 14 year old girl who has an infatuation with imitating Godzilla. That’s where the implementation of skilled communicators and change agents find their value.
@Michael, your courage to obtain failure in the beginning of the process is encouraging. I am uncomfortable with the word “failure”, so the thought of attempting to “fail” is not appealing to me. Although, I am comfortable with the concept of “learning from mistakes/experiences”, but to the extent that I want to avoid failure:). So, I am learning how to be ok with “failure” which enables me to see the problem more objectively, which enables me to see a solution more efficiently.
You state, “It is a bit like surfing, you can’t plan to catch a wave, you can only plan to be in the water, the rest is feeling + skill + experience.” I like that analogy.
I believe that anxiety created by a sense of failure is connected to one’s skill, focus resources, knowledge, and vision; to the extent that, those attributes are hidden from sight when the blanket of anxiety covers the body.
I think that’s where a good teacher and/or coach can relinquish some of their greatest value. They help to unveil the blanket that inhibits the designer by affirming, encouraging, and collaborating with them to re-strengthen their skill, focus, resources, knowledge, and vision. That’s how I have found a great deal of help from my teachers and coaches.
Tuesday, January 25 at 3:41pm
Rene, the other program you experienced was UC, right?
I LOVE and agree with everything you’re saying about design education and have a hunch- even though I only experienced one program- that the experience is nearly universal.
The University of Cincinnati’s ID department has long been well-regarded in the industry, but it’s fairly common knowledge that that is because of the co-op program. Co-op breathes life into the program, giving students opportunities (in rather short bursts) to be immersed in the industry and get up-to-snuff with technology and standards. It also creates a very big let-down upon re-entrance into academia and frequently antiquated tools and methods.
As a recent graduate, I have found myself captivated (preoccupied?) by the problem that is design education. The industry is evolving and advancing, but many of the schools are not. There is a time and a place for learning fundamentals, but there is also a time and a place to learn and become fluent in industry standards. I believe that schools are going to need to shift, and become more tech-savy, or risk low rankings and poor job placement.
Wednesday, January 26 at 10:29am
I graduated from the Design Academy in Eindhoven (Netherlands) in 1996. During those years of study, the school showed very little to no attention for the digital revolution. I guess they thought, from a focus on industrial design, the whole digital development in general and specifically the Internet would be temporary, a hype. We now realize how wrong they were.
Since then the digital world evolved at a mind-boggling speed. Data, speed, storage and services figures doubled each month,…. and they still do. But soon we’ll come to a point were we’ll look for more balance. I think we’re about to realize that everything can and will be done in our virtual world. But, as this world grows and gets completely global, we also realize that our daily live and environment shrinks to a minimal size.
Coming from a fully digitized live we cannot fall back into the old analog world. We are used to ‘smart’, so we expect our environment to be smart. And to be honest, we already see ‘smart’ around us. Cars can already park themselves. No problem to add some location based service to also find a parking lot (a nightmare in Amsterdam where I live). We are talking about smart fridges for over a decade now. They are not there yet, but we are ready, technically and from a user perspective. “Yes”, it should order milk when I take out the last container, and “Yes”, I would like to get suggestions based on the groceries my Facebook friends ordered. But “No”, not Harry’s list, since he’s a vegetarian, etc.
Back in 1996 I graduated with a television interface. TV channels and TV on demand pop-up back then. People could all of a sudden choose from hundreds of channels instead of just a few. Interface designers jumped on this problem and came up with all kind of on screen solutions. I myself solved the information overload with a combined analog – digital solution. The system itself would suggest programs or shows fetched by software agents. The system would present it’s suggestions as physical objects in a physical interface. By interacting with my objects (place them on the interface, store them or give them back) I would instruct the system. The agents would learn from the way I handled my objects and get smarter over time.
In 1996 this was a conceptual but physical solution for a digital problem. From where I stand and what I see right now I truly believe the near future will bring us more ‘smart’ solutions. Since the new designers will be digital natives instead of immigrant they will bring in knew knowledge and understanding. But they will also feel the urge to stay connected to an analog environment
Tuesday, January 25 at 3:09pm
I believe that the core experience of any product lies with its interface, digital or physical. My interests are in how the two worlds can coexist, blend, and fuse together, enabling the other to do more than it could before.
As more and more products are enabled with larger LCD screens, touch interaction, and Internet connectivity, the designer needs to remember that the product will not function in a vacuum. The thermostat and your TV remote can both be replaced by apps. When designing a product, we can use the flexibility of digital experiences to do more things with products, easier and more enjoyable. For example, the recent Motorola Atrix shows a future where all computing can be done on one smartphone that can be (seamlessly) docked into a full HDMI computer monitor, or a portable laptop shell without interrupting the user experience on the different screens.
All of this means one thing for many traditional industrial and product designers: interaction and interface design is a crucial part of their work can cannot be ignored. When designing a product, the mentality of “someone else can do it” will not suffice anymore. The relationship between the physical object and digital interface is vital to the user experience.
This leads to another subject that was brought up: education. I believe that an industrial design student needs to graduate with a basic understanding of some other disciplines they may work with: marketing, engineers, even interaction design. CMU’s design department has ties to the Human Computer Interaction Institute that allowed me to study for two degrees. This multidisciplinary education has allowed me to understand both disciplines, their concerns, and how they work together.
Another topic of interest here is on workflow and its digitization. Our school has similar problems to the ones Rene noted: professors who are comfortably using old methods that have no marketable value today, and are not even aware of current trends. I respect the old school method, but the students have to spend time to learn on their own that they could’ve been using to work on cool projects.
I have had work experience with a group that does sole digital work from sketch to CAD to production. No physical prototyping, no chance for me to get a feel of the product that I was designing. What’s worse is that the ID department is siloed from the IxD and HF departments. Their products are cameras, which require a delicate balance of all three disciplines attention to be enjoyable to use. Unfortunately, the siloing leads to a user experience that is disjointed, physical buttons that don’t match the interface, functionally or visually… And has caused the company to fade into obsolescence. I believe strongly in interdisciplinary collaboration and that for the collaboration to work perfectly, all disciplines need an understanding of what the other is.
The evolution of the design workspace parallels the evolution of tech in the world. We’ve gained the ability to do and learn so much more through computers and the Internet, and with vastly different people. The most important thing is empathy and the ability to understand each other.
Wednesday, January 26 at 1:07am
Julius, thanks for joining in_ don’t forget, we will still need to go to the bathroom… toilets don’t have LCD screens! ;-) Sure the TV remote could be an app, the question is, should it be? Is there even a singular answer?
Seriously though, I think your right, the “someone else can do the interface” mentality does not suffice for creating disruptive, impactful, culturally relevant products and experience. I also want to emphasize a single designer also doesn’t have to do it all! We can work together, build on each other’s strengths to create something much better than we could do individually. Sometimes it does help to focus on a singular craft, to go deep and build that strength and bring it to the group for everyone to build on. I call that a mono disciplinary skill set with a multi disciplinary mind set. That only works with visionary design leadership that fosters collaboration and protects an environment where people can feel comfortable to make mistakes. I use the word protect intentionally because creativity is a fragile thing. An environment for multiple creative disciplines to work in is difficult to build and maintain. It is a design challenge in itself. An environment of creative trusts allows us to take risks, and that how we make things better.
Imagine if design education was like that?
At the end of the day, merely good design can be about the product, the service, the interaction, the interface, but for design to be great it must concern itself with everything. From the brand campaign to the inbox booklet, every detail is as important as the whole.
Ironically if you look at the work of Raymond Loewy and other originators of the field of design doing, you will notice a pretty broad portfolio of work across the disciplines of the time… so I would argue this isn’t something new, merely rediscovered.
Wednesday, January 26 at 2:36am
The design of physical objects and spaces is around form and function. If we get either one of these wrong then the end result is a compromise. In regard to objects and spaces changing in the digital world it is the process that is changing but the physical must stick to the rules of form and function which is not necessarily relevant to anything digital.
Wednesday, January 26 at 7:15pm
“we expect our environment to be smart” Sebastiaan Terlouw
This sums it up for me. We expect smartness now from all of our interactions with devices because it is now possible and affordable. We expect designers to anticipate and build on this smartness, starting in the home.
I sketch in the steam on my shower glass while thinking in the morning, wish it could be frozen or recorded sometimes. While she was just now drying her hair in front of the mirror, she asked me to look up the weather in Hawaii for her upcoming trip. She wants to listen to her NHK morning news in the bathroom. I want a touchscreen display behind the mirror in my bathroom, there when I need it.
My living room has a video projector, I have long disliked the neediness of a rectangular black TV that occupies one wall. When we watch content, BlueRay disks or PS3 games, we are immersed in it, our wall has become the display, when we are done, it disappears. I just wish I didn’t have the big projector on the other side of the room.
In my kitchen, when making dinner, I listen to podcasts. I look up recipes online, the same recipes that I accessed in the market to buy the ingredients the hour before. The tablet display sits above the stove out of the fray. While at the market, I am not sure what all I have in the refrigerator, wish there was an inventory list I could access. When I cook something, the recipe often calls for changing the stove burner control, bring to boil for two minutes, simmer for 20 minutes, I am not always there to move the knob, or remember to turn it off in time. I want my stove to be smart too, link it to my recipe, show me the display on the counter top surface.
Girlfriend asks how long it is going to be raining today on her way to work, that should be displayed on the front door, with the schedule for the next bus or tram, or a link to order a taxi.
The design of the home environmet should incorporate this smartness, an information aware house. Not filled with demanding little black framed displays, but with displays that appear and recede when required. Augmented home with a common interface and universal displays. I currently have probably 30-50 displays on my devices around my home, most with their own operating logic and language. We need more integration and less visual interruption, the physical design of the house follows the same rules as we have established and become accustomed to.
I literally stopped using my laptop in October, the popular flat tablet fills all of its functions of information portability and communication. The desktop tower has the horsepower for the specific tasks. I now rarely use my smartphone for any other function to make phone calls and send a decreasing number of text messages, again, replaced by the ubiquity of the tablet computer I carry. The next step for me is clear. I don’t want to carry around a device, especially around the home, I simply want the display to follow me everywhere I go.
For the record, my Japanese toilet already has a LCD screen.
Thursday, January 27 at 9:54pm
@Shaw, good to see you in here… I think the key here will be balance and adjustibility. How do we make it seamless, and totally opt in. There will be huge barriers to entry to get to that point as well in terms of cost and installation… both will be overcome, but will need to be addressed. I like what Sara Hamling said earlier:
“i think physical experiences will be forced to become more important simply as a means of balancing the two kinds of experiences out. I think the further we push towards the digital, the more our society will simultaneous crave the opposite extreme.”
Friday, January 28 at 1:42pm
i think we just need to be careful about how we gentrify creative energy due to the ease with which everything becomes available, and the capacity for things to rise to the top, so to speak, of public interest, and other things to become lost in the shuffle. there is a shrinking of different creative areas, that is, physical spaces on the map, which, though far from complete, poses an obstacle i think to the variety of creative professions available to everyone. that is to say, because the few can reach the many, the many risk being lost under the shadow of the few.
additionally, and, perhaps to better answer your question, i think our increasingly digital world is funny, as the problems we are beginning to face environmentally are largely physical problems. whatever hard or soft limits we run into in the “real” world don’t exist in the digital one. we have to be aware that back home we have limitations, even if digitally we don’t.
Friday, January 28 at 2:24am
Sennett_ don’t forget the digital world is consuming a lot of physical resources with every upgrade of technology to increase our digital immersion. Think of the family kitchen phone you grew up (for those of us of a certain age in here). The old trusted corded phone was used by everyone in the household and lasted decades. Compare to your personal smartphone no one else uses that many people upgrade every year. Now compare that to the metal can opener you had as a kid to the plastic handled jobs of today.
Maybe metal and glass are not appropriate materials for our digital devices, and conversely plastic is not an appropriate material for our analog ones. If e are going to be upgrading technology every year, we should be looking at ways to expend the least amount of resources to create that technology. For other items that don’t need to be upgraded, like the can opener example, materials with permanence would be more appropriate.
This reminds me of my very first printer. A dot matrix guy with the reel feed (the perforated dots on the side to pull the feed). That thing was a tank. It probably still works. But the technology was improving so rapidly you didn’t want it to last! Now that even cheap printers are photoquality, I can’t find a printer that will last more than 18 months!
Friday, January 28 at 1:51pm
Cost and gentrification are certainly concerns. When I first traveled to China 12 years, two things stuck out. Every public sink had electric eye faucets and the mid-level hotel room had a single membrane console next to the bed that controlled all of the electronics in the room. I assumed there was a savings that could be justified.
New display technologies of e-ink discuss paint application surface displays. New laser micro projectors show crisp full color displays with constant focus over curved surfaces. The cost of a display and touch sensing is going to drop by an order of magnitude. When considering the future of electronics, I don’t consider cost of processing power.
Sennett, nice reminder of keeping it real and lessening detachment. I think it happens organically, if society wants to remain rooted, then designers will supply a rooted experience. Call it retro, call it classic, call it skeuomorphic. However, if society wants to detach and wants a gravity free, reality 2.0 experience, the tools are developing for that as well.
Micheal, for the example of a can opener, is not the concept of “the can” a larger use of resources itself than a multilayer plastic flexible package? Is the can and the can opener simply a relic?
Saturday, January 29 at 12:25am
Keywords
Selected list of words appearing in this and other conversations.
Carly Hagins
freelance designer
0
As someone who spends a tremendous amount of time on my computer, I think objects and spaces are going to need to be designed with an emphasis on experiences that have been more commonplace in the past.
Here’s what I mean:
Designers and engineers are using Solidworks to build models and (I would argue) not building prototypes by hand in a model shop nearly as much. Solidworks is a really powerful, awesome tool, and it makes sense that its being used. The model shop, however, has social benefits as well as the tactile sense of achievement that comes with building something by hand. If Solidworks is the new go-to tool, why not have a dedicated space with a round table where multiple people can sit and work on solidworks together? I’m not sure how to simulate building something by hand, but I do think that is a big area of opportunity for software and hardware. A tool that combines the intuitiveness of building something by hand with the power and technology of a computer would certainly be the new industry standard.
In order to avoid becoming digital drones, we’ll simply have to pay more attention to these experiences that define happiness and what it means to be human. We’ll need to be more social (in the face-to-face conversation way, not the I posted photos to facebook way) and we’ll need to get outside more. We will need to design products and spaces that allow us to use our bodies- more than just our typing fingers- as much as we use our minds.
At the end of the day, though, I would simply vote for a balance of digital and analog. Just because digital tools are (rapidly) evolving, doesn’t mean that we need to, or should, leave our analog tools and experiences behind.
Monday, January 24 at 9:52am