<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Design Sojourn</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.designsojourn.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.designsojourn.com</link>
	<description>The Business of Strategic Industrial Design</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:10:31 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Why are there so few truly remarkable products? by Karen</title>
		<link>http://www.designsojourn.com/why-are-there-so-few-truly-remarkable-products/comment-page-1/#comment-66759</link>
		<dc:creator>Karen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 16:10:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designsojourn.com/?p=2786#comment-66759</guid>
		<description>chipping in late at night: I think all the above factors could boil down to one main reason: hiring. Design is mainly dependent on fine thinking and wise hiring of the best minds. Probably this may sound pessimistic but I often feel that bad products are there because we have wrong hiring objectives. Worse if one takes in individual (politicking) objectives into hand. 

When inferior minds are hired, don&#039;t expect remarkable products because one simply cannot become remarkable via unremarkable minds. 

Also remarkable products can only derived from an clear mind. Not a mind that is busy of how to get the best of just yourself and your peers. Its about getting the best into the team that counts. 

Hope I&#039;ve made sense..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>chipping in late at night: I think all the above factors could boil down to one main reason: hiring. Design is mainly dependent on fine thinking and wise hiring of the best minds. Probably this may sound pessimistic but I often feel that bad products are there because we have wrong hiring objectives. Worse if one takes in individual (politicking) objectives into hand. </p>
<p>When inferior minds are hired, don&#8217;t expect remarkable products because one simply cannot become remarkable via unremarkable minds. </p>
<p>Also remarkable products can only derived from an clear mind. Not a mind that is busy of how to get the best of just yourself and your peers. Its about getting the best into the team that counts. </p>
<p>Hope I&#8217;ve made sense..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why are there so few truly remarkable products? by Waikit Chung</title>
		<link>http://www.designsojourn.com/why-are-there-so-few-truly-remarkable-products/comment-page-1/#comment-66757</link>
		<dc:creator>Waikit Chung</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:25:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designsojourn.com/?p=2786#comment-66757</guid>
		<description>I believe that many companies are indeed looking for &#039;new&#039; things, but what they should looking for is the &#039;right&#039; thing, which is not necessary &#039;remarkable&#039;.
The right thing is something that people want and that the company is capable to provide, and this does not mean it should include new technologies.
To me &#039;remarkable&#039; products are the &#039;right&#039; products that are  meaningful to exist. They probably become not remarkable(that&#039;s why Brian is stating that there are so few of them), because everyone are doing the same thing.
Hmm..does this make sense?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe that many companies are indeed looking for &#8216;new&#8217; things, but what they should looking for is the &#8216;right&#8217; thing, which is not necessary &#8216;remarkable&#8217;.<br />
The right thing is something that people want and that the company is capable to provide, and this does not mean it should include new technologies.<br />
To me &#8216;remarkable&#8217; products are the &#8216;right&#8217; products that are  meaningful to exist. They probably become not remarkable(that&#8217;s why Brian is stating that there are so few of them), because everyone are doing the same thing.<br />
Hmm..does this make sense?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why are there so few truly remarkable products? by fred mendes</title>
		<link>http://www.designsojourn.com/why-are-there-so-few-truly-remarkable-products/comment-page-1/#comment-66754</link>
		<dc:creator>fred mendes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designsojourn.com/?p=2786#comment-66754</guid>
		<description>I agree with most topics on this review/article.
Something that gets to me when I&#039;m designing something with my team is the huga amout of ideas like &quot;so this is a stool that is also a coffe machine or whatever&quot;... Of course this is an extreme situation, it hasn&#039;t actually happened, but I reckon one thing that lacks (us) designers is the ability to get to the solution we&#039;re seeking.
And it&#039;s tough!
It&#039;s tough because the company not always can produce what we design, but at the same time we have to design something that is different enough from what they&#039;ve seen - otherwise there&#039;d be no reason to hire us, really!!!
And I quite ofter see designers saying &quot;Yeah... that isn&#039;t possible&quot; when what we should be saying is &quot;What can be done with the resources is this solution&quot;.
In other words, designers, in my point of view, have become a bit lazy and happy with the first solution that pops our minds. And we quite often lose ourselves along the way trying to enhance the product with assets that are not really part of a product and maybe shouldn&#039;t be featured at all!
I think one day customisation will be the key to success. And designers will have to actually talk to all consumers and learn what they really, really want and need and have very specific solutions - and happier customers.

And that brings another thought to my mind... Years ago it took about 6 months to design a product and present all the solutions with hand-drawn sheets sheets and 1:1 models in clay, foam, or whatever. Nowadays things are just-in-time with 3D modelling softwares and not-so-much thinking products being designed. I mean, fast solutions for demanding clients and still a large number os unhappy consumers, buying second best products.
I believe that when designers start to really listen to people, the development of a product will again take months to be finished, rush won&#039;t be part of the development itself. But people will be happier - maybe?!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with most topics on this review/article.<br />
Something that gets to me when I&#8217;m designing something with my team is the huga amout of ideas like &#8220;so this is a stool that is also a coffe machine or whatever&#8221;&#8230; Of course this is an extreme situation, it hasn&#8217;t actually happened, but I reckon one thing that lacks (us) designers is the ability to get to the solution we&#8217;re seeking.<br />
And it&#8217;s tough!<br />
It&#8217;s tough because the company not always can produce what we design, but at the same time we have to design something that is different enough from what they&#8217;ve seen &#8211; otherwise there&#8217;d be no reason to hire us, really!!!<br />
And I quite ofter see designers saying &#8220;Yeah&#8230; that isn&#8217;t possible&#8221; when what we should be saying is &#8220;What can be done with the resources is this solution&#8221;.<br />
In other words, designers, in my point of view, have become a bit lazy and happy with the first solution that pops our minds. And we quite often lose ourselves along the way trying to enhance the product with assets that are not really part of a product and maybe shouldn&#8217;t be featured at all!<br />
I think one day customisation will be the key to success. And designers will have to actually talk to all consumers and learn what they really, really want and need and have very specific solutions &#8211; and happier customers.</p>
<p>And that brings another thought to my mind&#8230; Years ago it took about 6 months to design a product and present all the solutions with hand-drawn sheets sheets and 1:1 models in clay, foam, or whatever. Nowadays things are just-in-time with 3D modelling softwares and not-so-much thinking products being designed. I mean, fast solutions for demanding clients and still a large number os unhappy consumers, buying second best products.<br />
I believe that when designers start to really listen to people, the development of a product will again take months to be finished, rush won&#8217;t be part of the development itself. But people will be happier &#8211; maybe?!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Spaces for Ideas: The Final Prototype! by Jo Spargo</title>
		<link>http://www.designsojourn.com/spaces-for-ideas-the-final-prototype/comment-page-1/#comment-66753</link>
		<dc:creator>Jo Spargo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:51:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designsojourn.com/?p=2721#comment-66753</guid>
		<description>Hey, I&#039;d probably buy both, then see which one got the most mileage before reordering lots of the more useful size. Both have their merits but I think the smaller book would fit nicely into my bag when I meet client for coffee and we need to sketch something out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, I&#8217;d probably buy both, then see which one got the most mileage before reordering lots of the more useful size. Both have their merits but I think the smaller book would fit nicely into my bag when I meet client for coffee and we need to sketch something out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Spaces for Ideas: The Final Prototype! by Kaushik Gopal</title>
		<link>http://www.designsojourn.com/spaces-for-ideas-the-final-prototype/comment-page-1/#comment-66751</link>
		<dc:creator>Kaushik Gopal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 07:53:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.designsojourn.com/?p=2721#comment-66751</guid>
		<description>Hey DT,

Imho, the smaller one should be produces in mass and shipped. The larger variety can be a sort of made to order. The beauty is the smaller size caters to larger requirements. My reasoning is, this is a sort of scratch pad. You don&#039;t expect to have your &quot;scratch designs&quot; on pages larger than A2! but for those who strongly disagree with my opinion, you have the made to order option ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey DT,</p>
<p>Imho, the smaller one should be produces in mass and shipped. The larger variety can be a sort of made to order. The beauty is the smaller size caters to larger requirements. My reasoning is, this is a sort of scratch pad. You don&#8217;t expect to have your &#8220;scratch designs&#8221; on pages larger than A2! but for those who strongly disagree with my opinion, you have the made to order option ;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
