Design Sojourn

You probably would have read a very rare Jonathan Ive interview on Core 77 by now. If you have not, do check it out? I would say a lot of the interview was generally not surprising, however the last few paragraphs jumped out at me. What I noticed was that despite Apple’s very digital playing field, their industrial design process was, and is, still very old school analogue.

That last part reminds me that there must have been a sizeable team behind the iPhone 4, and Ive confirms it, mentioning the importance of collaboration between engineering, manufacturing and design. It is an intense interplay between these fields that can yield mastery of the material, which is where everything starts with this object. “The best design explicitly acknowledges that you cannot disconnect the form from the material–the material informs the form,” says Ive. “It is the polar opposite of working virtually in CAD to create an arbitrary form that you then render as a particular material, annotating a part and saying ‘that’s wood’ and so on. Because when an object’s materials, the materials’ processes and the form are all perfectly aligned, that object has a very real resonance on lots of levels. People recognize that object as authentic and real in a very particular way.”

Nicely put. No one is an expert, and it is only through a multidisciplinary process that it all comes together; materials, process and design. There must be a meaningful confluence of the elements otherwise it will be like sticking wood laminate on a laptop to make it more valuable. Furthermore, this requires stepping away from the computer and getting reacquainted with materials and processes. Indeed this is quite a hat tip to the old school craftsman approach to design.

“In our quest to quickly make three-dimensional objects, we can miss out on the experience of making something that helps give us our first understandings of form and material, of the way a material behaves–’I press too hard here, and it breaks here’ and so on. Some of the digital rendering tools are impressive, but it’s important that people still really try and figure out a way of gaining direct experience with the materials.”

(snip…)

“It’s very hard to learn about materials academically, by reading about them or watching videos about them; the only way you truly understand a material is by making things with it,” Ive explains, going on to add that years upon years of making his own models with his own hands is what gave him a deep understanding of the materials he’s worked. “And it’s important to develop that appetite to want to make something, to be inquisitive about the material world, to want to truly understand a material on that level.”

And what about when students graduate and become working designers? Absent the structured assignments of a Production Methods or Materials class, how ought designers stay abreast of materials? The best place for it to happen, of course, is in the workplace itself. “For a designer to continually learn about materials is not extracurricular,” Ive points out, “it’s absolutely essential.”

It is funny how when most designers like us say things like this people go “oh hum”, but judging from the responses on the web, when Jony says this people go “oohhh ahhhh”! Life isn’t fair in design, especially if you have a damn good marketing team and budget behind you.

Whatever people’s feelings are about the actual design of the product is of course subjective. But objectively I can say that the manufacturing tolerances are phenomenal.
~ Ives on the CnC milled iPhone 4 antenna.

That is all nice talk and all, but what I don’t get is Apple’s definition of craft. In the past craft was all about a hand made, slow design process with small volumes. Imperfections in the material and this hand made process was cherished and encouraged for its uniqueness because no piece was exactly the same. However from Apple’s point of view craft is about high volumes, precision, machine made and repeatability. Hmm…

The only thing that is similar is probably the design or thinking process. So then, is “craft” about the thinking process rather than the doing process?

If we continue to hold this line of thought, then how do we value craft and how has the value changed because of what Apple, or perhaps what the mobile phone industry has done? A colleague related to me how you can find beautiful pieces of limited artwork for a fraction of the cost of an iPhone in countries like Vietnam or Thailand. Street peddlers, carving sculptures, negotiate downwards when you are not interested in the purchase. And yet we are happy to pay for a product that practically the whole world has?

Some food for thought, no?

Via: Core 77.

Check out this new Moleskine sketchbook! Oops, no, it’s a Moleskine cover for your Kindle. And if the reports are true, there is a Moleskine cover for your iPad in the works. The Moleskine Kindle cover is designed with their usual familiar details such as rounded corners, black elastic band and smooth black leather cover. This time though, the insides are lined with suede.

Unfortunately, users are up in arms as the current notepad orientation and kindle placement seems to only work for left-handers. (Could you not design it to flip 180 degrees?)

What I really find interesting is that Moleskine is evolving their product range beyond sketch/note books to larger sized A4 pads and even leather bound folders. The interesting question with this Kindle cover is whether people associate the Moleskine brand with the design of its product/cover and or associate the brand with the product’s function i.e. sketchbooks?

Whether this Kindle cover makes sense or not, it is always interesting to see how brands with strong design languages leverage it on product extensions. They even have a cool design justification that does make sense.

The very idea of this new cover came from the Moleskine “notebook hackers”, who create their own custom-made accessories weaving together paper pages and digital tools. Throughout the web, hundreds of communities and discussions can be found where such Moleskine “hackers” publish their inventions. Dedicated blogs, Flickr pages, and even YouTube videos highlight the power and vitality of the Moleskine digital-analog connection.

Think about that when you create your next design language?

Via: Core77, Moleskine, Moleskine Asia and @harrywakefield.

Ariane Prin, a Masters student at RCA, shares her thinking and conceptual process behind her Air Hair Project: hair dryer for hairdressers.

As part of my survey, I visited many hairdressers and I was able to observe that they use the hairdryer for approximately 4.5 hours a day but that this was not very well adapted. They taught me that this object has to be smaller, lighter, wireless, that they often use the same nozzle, and that the switch allowing distinct levels of power is useless because they habitually use the maximum mode.

The most impressive thing is the fact that a majority of hairdressers do not use the handle because they cannot be precise, then efficient, then rapid, then have a lot of clients, and earn a lot of money. They hold it by the body of the object even if this is the hottest part. Moreover, at the end of their career, 70% of the hairdressers have wrist and shoulder articulation problems.

This is for all those reasons that I started to work on the ergonomics of the hairdryer. I have made research on different shapes in blue foam and I came back to the hairdressers to decide together what could be the three most adapted shapes.

The fascinating part of her process is what I like to call “design by making”. Ariane jumps head on into making sketch models from her sketches to test out her form. As you can see, her meaningful design solutions was because she got real quick. Sadly, this sort of “design by making” methodology is almost hardly done these days.

Designers are getting lazy due to the easy access to CAD (yes you!), as CAD is a much “cleaner” way of doing design. I myself am also guilty of this. Unfortunately by going from sketch straight to CAD, you lose the opportunity to get in touch with the “feel” of an object, its proportions, its weight, and the ergonomics.

You may say that this should be limited to products like hair dryers of mobile phones. However if the car industry still sculpts and refines the lines of a concept car in clay, I don’t see why we should give up this crucial step in our design process?

When was the last time you got “real” quick? How early in your design process did you get “real”? You might also be surprised to know that by getting “real” quick you could speed up your design process, as you can get to your design solution quicker and make less mistakes or iterations. So why not give it a try in your next design project?

Via: Core77.

Steelcase, together with IDEO, has launched the Node Chair, an awesome seating solution that either solves or fulfills a number of needs found in a common school environment.

These issues, include flexible arrangements for lab or collaborative type learning, mobility, comfort (looks like lefties or right will sit well) and utility for storage of bags.

This product is a great example of what user centered innovation can do for you. Hang on, was it not dead?

Via: Fast Company and The Contemporist.

In our world of technology influenced and managed solutions, it is nice to see the sensitivity and handiwork of a craftsman come back into the fold. The eBoy FixPix Electronic Puzzle Game for iPhone is a self indulgent romp into the world of hand crafted pixel art.

Beautifully hand drawn canvases range from the simple and whimsical to the outright bizarre. Never a dull moment!

I would be happy with admiring the artwork. However the added element of a visual puzzle, where you have to tilt your iPhone to align the pixels to form the artwork, encourages you to really study the artwork’s details.

Check out their website, eBoy FixPix, for a cool flash base teaser. (Sorry iPadders!)

Nicholas Negroponte’s 3rd Generation OLPC (not surprisingly a table PC) is on the way with a prototype out this year and a product launch at CES 2011. The target retail price is USD $75.

Despite all the setbacks of the first two OLPCs, the program is still pushing on and refining their proposition along the way. As they say, ship as soon as you can but refine it quickly by taking in the feedback as you go.

Despite all my reservations on the program and product, you have to respect the energy and persistence behind it. We all can learn something from this.

Via: YouTube. Thanks @rebang

I’m sure most of you have heard of the Microsoft Kin by now. Furthermore you would probably have moaned about how this product lacked innovation and how it was a failure in strategy to introduce a “dumb phone” in a world dominated by smart phones.

Remember our last discussion on how “User Centered Innovation is Dead“? Well, you might like to know that the Microsoft Kin is a fine example of a product that went through a user centered innovation process. Any doubt that user centered innovation is dead?

I’m sure designers would find these (above & below) consumer segmentation images familiar. I prepared a few in my time. However, before we go on, do have a ponder if product segmentation strategies are still relevant in today’s market, especially when more and more consumers demand customization due to individual needs. Just how much customization is required these days?

Gizmodo has an interesting review of the phone cum interview with Aaron Woodman, director of the product management team, on the business strategy behind the Kin. Despite the Kin not being an innovation in a radical sense, I personally think this is the right strategic move for Microsoft.

As the world runs like mad to follow the iPhone way, Microsoft bucks the trend by going backwards and launching a phone that does not do much except bring a focus solution to a very narrow market, i.e. teenagers. It does looks like hard keys on a phone are a must for a texting teenager eh?

The reality is Microsoft understands the smart phone market is lead by a King, and is extremely crowded with Princes. So the only way for a new or small player (in terms of market share) can beat the market is in niche offerings. This is the advantage of using a user centered design process. It allows for the creation of a very optimized solution for a specific target market, thereby beating the competition with a superior product that excels in fixed set of criteria.

It is useful to note that at the end of the review, the author points out what is likely the main pit fall in a user-centered design/innovation process. Designers and businesses walk a slippery slope of over market segmentation. The example that Gizmodo uses of the car industry is a great one.

Over market segmentation leads to too many product SKUs (i.e. the car industry etc.), an un-manageable product range, and a confused consumer. That’s where propositions like the iPhone, with an expandable interface, has an advantage of one product doing a lot. Not to mention, the creation of a much simpler and easy to understand product lineup.

I’m looking forward to see how the Kin performs in the market, as despite all the research, the market is still the final arbiter. Let’s hope the Kin does well, because the other problem with a focused product is if you did not totally get your target market, your product will likely not fit anyone else.

Images via: Gizmondo

This packaging concept by Patrick Sung might force postal organizations to review their methods of calculating shipping costs as you can now save on empty air space. The only disadvantage is you lose the stacking ability and pallet organization that comes from fixed sized mailing boxes.

Image by YimHafiz

I would much prefer it if the triangle segments were more flexible so that it could fold and stick out like durian spikes affording the wrapped item more protection. I’m sure the designer intended it that way, but was likely constraint by the material.

Via: Yanko Design

Gizmodo, in probably their scoop of the year, has written an interesting industrial design analysis of Apple’s supposed iPhone generation 4 prototype that some poor Apple employee (probably now fired) left behind.

The New Industrial Design

At first sight, this new iPhone’s industrial design seems so different from the previous two generations that it could be discarded as just a provisional case. Even while the finish is so perfect that it feels right out of the factory, some of the design language elements that are common to all Apple products are not there. Gone is the flushed screen glass against the metal rim. Gone is the single volume button, replaced by two separate ones. Gone is the seamless rim, and gone are the tapered, curved surfaces.

Despite that, however, this design is not a departure. Not when you frame it with the rest of the Apple product line. It’s all the contrary: This new iPhone gets back to the simplicity of the iMac and the iPad. In fact, you can argue that the current iPhone 3GS—with its shiny chrome rim and excessively curved back—is out of place compared to the hard edges and Dieter-Ramish utilitarianism of the iMac and the iPad. Next to the iPad, for example, the new iPhone makes sense. It has the same feeling, the same functional simplicity.

But why the black plastic back, instead of going with an unibody aluminum design? Why the two audio volume buttons? Why the seams? And why doesn’t the back have any curvature at all?

Why the plastic back?
The plastic back is the most obvious of the design choices. The iPad, with its all aluminum back, has seen its Wi-Fi reception radius reduced. The 3G version comes with a large patch on the top, probably big enough to provide with good reception. But the new tiny iPhone doesn’t have the luxury of space: It needs to provide with as much signal as possible using a very small surface. I’m sure Jon Ive is dying to get rid of the plastic back, and go iPad-style all the way, but the wireless reception is the most important thing in a cellphone. A necessary aesthetical-functional trade-off.

Why separate volume buttons?
This new iPhone uses separate buttons for the volume instead of the single button that you can find in the iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad. It’s one of the factors that may indicate that this is a provisional case, until you think about one of the most requested features for Apple’s phone: A physical button for the camera. The new iPhone has a bigger sensor and a flash, which means that the camera function keeps gaining more weight. It’s only logical to think that Apple may have implemented this two-button approach to provide with a physical shutter button. It makes sense.

Why the seams?
The seams are perhaps the most surprising aspect of the new design. They don’t seem to respond to any aesthetic criteria and, in terms of function, we can’t adventure any explanation. But they don’t look bad. In fact, the whole effect seems good, like something you will find in a Braun product from the 70s.

It’s doubtful that the seams are arbitrary, however. Either they will disappear from the final product, or they have a function we can’t foresee at this time.

Why no tapering or curves?
As you will see in a future article, the new iPhone is so miniaturized and packed that there’s no room for the tapered, curved surfaces. Everything is as tight as it could get, with no space for anything but electronics.

If this object is indeed the real deal, I’m honestly disappointed. What is up with those seams? Those volume buttons are just unfinished! Oh man, and that 3 layered (sandwich) form factor? You could have seen that almost 10 years ago in mobile phone design, and much better executed! Actually, now that I think about it, I do recall seeing an Mp3 player in China with such a similar form factor.

Anyways, when I first saw those fuzzy images of this prototype on the Internet a few days ago, I called it an expensive fake. The reason was I expected the iPhone 4 to run at least a Unibody back similar to the iPad. Hey, if they can get the Version 2 iPad with 3G to work with the aluminum, why not the iPhone?

I also can’t believe that the industrial design team would give in to a specification and not push for the aluminum back? (Even though that “hamburger pattie” center looks like it was CnC milled) Even if sanity prevailed and the metal back is not going to work, I would imagine they would have created a Unibody solution out of plastic, just like their white Macbooks.

The Unibody has become such a synonymous design identity with Apple products, that it is to me risky that they have discarded it. Especially when this design seems to have regressed their evolution of their design language. I don’t know about you guys, I’m still holding out that this is a fake and hoping for a Unibody iPhone. I’m even toying with the idea that, even though the guts are real, the casing is not. It is just an elaborate functional prototype used to test electronics and software, not a mechanical case part design.

And did I say those seams are ugly?

Check out the full write up at Gizmodo. Thanks for the link @redspec.

Update: Looks like Josh Gruber is thinking along the same lines as I am. And according to Josh, this prototype looks like it was stolen!

This does sound like a joke, but I don’t think so.

It often happens that first world ideology is used in an “I know what’s good for you, and you should listen to me” manner and end up causing problems with third world people perhaps more interested in other self-preservation activities. That OLPC was one such project that suffered such a fate.

Perhaps it is about time to flip this approach on its head and look at this from another viewpoint, a viewpoint that really is all about going back to the basics. Maybe:

First World problems demand Simple Third World solutions.

Can third world countries help first world countries save themselves from their problems such as low birth rates, obesity, unsustainable living and food production etc.? Or will this end up to be another OLPC project, but in reverse?

Fortunately, this somehow makes sense. Modern living complicates our lives to the extreme with a number of side effects such as a sedentary living leading to obesity. We were so much healthier and sustainable in the past. Perhaps we do need to look back at our simpler times to better understand how we got to where we are now and how we can fix our first world problems.

Our fellows in the first world often come to visit and give us their well intentioned but often very problematic “solutions”. We thought, why don’t we pay back? Dx1W is a competition for designers, artists, scientists, makers and thinkers in developing countries to provide solutions for First World problems.

Dx1W has pro­claimed 2010 Inter­na­tional Year of the First World in Need, and has defined four main areas to address: Food Pro­duc­tion and Eat­ing Dis­or­ders, Aging Pop­u­la­tion and Low Birth rate, Immi­gra­tion and Inte­gra­tion to Soci­ety, Sus­tain­abil­ity and Over consumption.

The Dx1W com­pe­ti­tion is addressed to the devel­op­ing coun­tries of the world: All cre­ative solu­tions depend on hav­ing a pow­er­ful idea. Whether it’s great resources, mil­i­tary, pol­i­tics or gov­ern­ment, power and size are not enough with­out hav­ing a pow­er­ful vision. The First World needs our ideas to solve their prob­lems. First World prob­lems demand Sim­ple Third World solutions. From today on The Third World will bring ideas to redesign the future of the First World.

The dead­line for submissions is May 30st, 2010 11:59 p.m. EST. Visit the official site for more information and to sign up. I’m looking forward to the results of this competition.

Via: Gems Sty