tamiller1-productdesign

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Reading Response

For Scott Klemmer’s article, I really like the quote “Design is the practice of intentional creation to enhance the world.” It’s a definition that does not narrow down design into something that’s too specific. I relate to the statement that design is rooted in craft even though it spans many different disciplines. It goes back to one of the previous readings that mentioned non-designers thinking of design as an end-stage process in which the end product is just “made pretty”. Today, that is beginning to change. The statement that different areas of design borrow their basic theory from disciplines like engineering and computer science is something that’s important for not just designers to realize. How could this be included as a main part of a design education? If many different non-design courses were required as part of the design curriculum, that would be a lot of work that takes away from the actual design courses. In this case, I think it’s important for aspiring designers to decide what direction(s) they would most like to take before they start their education. For example, I became a computer science minor so that I could focus on web design. Without any computer science courses, I would have had a much harder time in my web design classes – not that they were inherently hard, but not having a background in coding at all would have made it much more difficult to get used to the coding aspect of creating websites. Some people who had never coded previously struggled with this throughout the semester because it was so new to them. That’s an example of why I think it would be useful for aspiring designers to think about which area they would most like to go into before they enroll in the design curriculum. I also agree that it would be useful for a designer to have basic knowledge of areas that aren’t design in order to incorporate that knowledge into design. 

As for James Victore’s article, I thought that the addressing of weirdness was important. I relate to the statement about weirdness in childhood. I was always a weird kid in one way or another – in the way that some elementary classes had a horse girl or a cars boy, I was the dinosaur girl. I had some weird tics, but I was always creative. I made up stories and drew them out on paper all the time. My classmates and even some teachers bullied me for some of my behaviors. But because my parents were so supportive of my creative antics, I was able to embrace it as a talent and I’ve succeeded in my design courses. I think this is why the stereotype of design people being weird is so prevalent – because it’s true. But like Victore said, it’s not a bad thing. Overall, I found this article to be inspirational. I especially like the quote “I don’t believe design can be “taught,” but rather that it can be “reminded.”" because it assumes that every single person has the ability to design. It’s just that society discriminates people who view the world from a different angle, so those who have been pressured to conform need to be reminded how creatively they saw the world as children.

Jon Kolko’s reading relates to Klemmer’s most, I think. I agree that generalists are just as needed as specialists. This goes back to the idea I proposed in response to Klemmer’s article in which I suggested that design students should figure out which area(s) they like most before going through with their classes so that they can incorporate knowledge from their focus areas into the designs they make. I also agree that it’s important to know how people work. After reading this article, it just feels like there’s so much expected of designers, like we should be able to understand anything. This prospect is a little overwhelming, but I think that’s the fun of it, because I like to learn about many different subjects. 

I think that Mike Monteiro had a lot of important points in his article. He states that designers these days have become interested only in what’s profitable. They stopped asking questions and they’re more focused on speed, which makes it difficult to focus on why they’re designing something in the first place. The example of Bobbi being involuntarily outed as queer to her parents is an unfortunate example of this. This is one of the reasons that designers really need to consider the repercussions of their work before they put it out into the world. They may have good intentions, but it’s easy to hurt someone inadvertently through work that has not been properly thought through.

I thought that his statement about organizations to back up designers is interesting. In terms of having organizations to back us up, I believe it could be a good thing or a bad thing. It’s important to push decisions that will prevent harm to people. An organization like the one that Monteiro mentioned could be either really good or really bad, depending on the actions of the people that it is comprised of.

I like Monteiro – he’s a charismatic speaker and knows how to deliver good advice in a way that’s fun to absorb. But I think he’s too politically opinionated. Being too biased is an irresponsible practice for designers, especially when it relates to the hypothetical design organizations that could back up a llone designer’s work. I agree that it would be useful to have such a body(ies) to rely on – it would definitely be able to push out a lot of work and ideas that could help people all around the world. It would have the power to promote wonderful products or campaigns that inspire people to help those who are impoverished, or to make a bigger effort in cleaning up our environment. But based on the way he speaks, I feel that Monteiro’s version of such an organization could be dangerous. It’s important for people to have a cause, but it’s unsafe to force one’s own ideals onto other people. Say that one of these backup design organizations becomes incredibly successful and influential on what it supports. Perhaps it could choose only to support certain ideas, while neglecting other designers whose ideals do not align with theirs - even if it could be beneficial to society. What’s important in design is that we have diversity. For a hypothetical design organization that can back up a designer’s work, the organization should have people from all different backgrounds, and not people who are united in a single set of beliefs.

Most of everyone has (or should have) good intentions. But no matter how good the intentions are, one’s set of ideals could hurt someone if they are not properly considered. For example, those who are against the right for transgender people to enter any bathroom of their choosing are concerned about criminals who would abuse that privilege and use it as an excuse to sexually harass innocent people by pretending to be a transgender person; but this also puts transgender people into a situation where they experience hostility and discrimination in general due to this fear. Those who rally for trans rights or any other minority are trying to raise awareness for these people in an attempt to eliminate discrimination, but this tends to incite hatred and violence towards those who are not a minority, such as people who are white, straight, etc. Neither of these scenarios are harmless, but we designers can easily promote such ideas through our work. That’s why it’s important for designers of many different perspectives to be present in such an organization. An issue solved by uniting the minds of many different people will create a solution that is well rounded and will cause less harm to people. If an organization that Monteiro spoke of existed, it should be like this.

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Design Ethics Reading Response

One thing that I noticed is mentioned a lot in this reading and also in the Monteiro reading from last week is about understanding the ramifications of how our designs are used. Like in the Monteiro reading, this article seemed adamant about rejecting situations in which your design may be used for harm rather than good, or if you’re specifically being told to design something that could violate your or someone else’s code of ethics. While I agree with this to an extent, I feel that the author goes a bit to the extreme when pushing their ideals. 

It's important to ensure that your design won't be used to harm another person. But I think it's difficult to tell how exactly how that will pan out, since people will find ways to hurt other people with anything. For example, what if you're designing cutlery or packaging for cutlery? Those kinds of devices are intended for use in preparing food, which is a perfectly innocent practice. However, others will inevitably use them to harm other people. There's no way to ensure they won't be used for that purpose without making it difficult for them to be used for their original purpose. Sometimes it's more obvious as to how a product could be used for harm, but sometimes people think of extremely elaborate ways to hurt other people. 

An example of a less obvious way to harm people is aluminum foil and Drano bombs. There have recently been cases of people making bombs out of innocent materials such Drano, aluminum foil, and plastic bottles. The criminals who do this pour Drano into a plastic bottle, then carefully slide in aluminum foil in the cap so that it doesn’t touch the liquid. The bottle sits on an unsuspecting victim’s lawn until someone goes to pick it up. Once the foil touches the Drano, a chemical reaction takes place that quickly results in an explosion with enough force to blow someone’s limb off. 

If this is the case, then is it unethical to do work for Drano or for a company that manufactures aluminum foil? Not necessarily. This is why it’s necessary to accept that what a consumer may do is completely out of our control, and we cannot take the blame for what other people choose to do with our designs. We can try to influence other people and convey to them what it is that they should do with our work. We can even give strict warnings about what not to do with our work, but even if we try our hardest, this sometimes fails. (Especially in the case of teenagers eating Tide Pods, as a recent example.)   

This relates to what the author implied about it being unethical to design “filtering UI for the Walmart online gun shop.” I feel that it’s incorrect for the author to assume that designers have the same idea of what is ethical to them -  there are many people who do not feel that it is unethical to do such a thing. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that, as a fact, it is unethical. It’s not as if the filtering UI designers are telling people to kill each other with the guns that Walmart is selling, they are merely doing what they are told, and this relates to selling a product whose original purpose does not involve harming another human being. 

Just as in the cutlery example, many guns are designed for a purpose that does not involve hurting another human being - for example, many people like to go hunting. Unfortunately, a very small number of people also choose to hurt and kill other people with guns, just as a small number of people choose to hurt each other with knives or drano bombs, of all things. It is unfair to the people who use guns correctly to claim that just the act of selling guns is unethical - it would be like claiming that selling knives, aluminum foil, or drano is unethical. This causes innocent, law-abiding people to be wronged and the problem to persist. 

While designers can strive to have an influence on their audience, we cannot physically control how others will use our designs. We can give direction on how our design should be consumed, but it is ultimately up to the consumer as to how they interpret our work. That isn’t to say that designers are blameless for their actions. If a designer creates something that incites hatred towards specific people, that could very well result in the harm of innocent people. For example, propaganda against political candidates could result in hostility towards people who align themselves with that political candidate. 

A prime example is the 2016 presidential election. The result was (and still is) an incredibly hostile social environment all over the nation that split friendships and often ignited violence that victimized both Conservatives and Liberals, and even those who did not want to take part in the election. Yet, designers continue to fan the flames of this hostile sociopolitical environment by dehumanizing those who do not align with their beliefs. This is not ok. In terms of understanding the ramifications of our design work, the issue stated above is rarely addressed. It is because of this that the ethical ideal presented in this article is problematic, at least in my opinion. 

As for Paula Scher’s article, I really like her ideas. While I wouldn't want to work for free all the time, I agree that it's important for a designer if they get to take total creative freedom. I've done some tiny projects for free before, and it at least gives me more experience and also something to add to my portfolio. But I also relate to Scher in being angry when a project I was doing for free was scrapped. I had a recent case of this, actually. I have a distant relative who works as a park ranger for the National Park Service, and she recently asked me to make a flyer for an event. After a week of mockups and decisions, she failed to tell me that the photos I used in the flyer didn't actually belong to the NPS. The flyer was due the next day, and she ended up giving me so much feedback that I couldn't even keep up. This included the creation of a logo for the event, which she failed to mention to me a week previously. It turned out that even after I sent a mockup, she decided to scrap the idea and make a flyer of her own. When she asked me to make the logo, I declined. I don't blame the NPS itself for this, since this was all decided on a whim by my distant relative. But I was a bit angry that all my work had been thrown away.

As for the Design Professionalism article, I don't think it's necessarily bad to try to work for an award. But I agree that it doesn't mean anything if the award isn't based on the overall effectiveness of a design, and is only based on something such as immediate visual impact or tactics used to create it. I can see where this article is coming from - it's important to focus on how your design will be used, not judged. But at the same time, I also think it’s important to have a specific goal to work towards, even if it’s to win something such as a membership at Massage Envy, etc.

What Leyla said about how people are manipulated into viewing the world negatively resonates with me. I agree with the fact that fearmongering does not spur people to do anything. Instead, we need to be more positive about how we convey our messages - generally, humans react better to rewards than punishments. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Design Ethics Reading Response

I never really thought of Milton Glaser as a life advice guru. After reading his talk, I realize that I agree with and relate to many of his statements, with some of them being working for people you like and not working with people who are toxic. I also agree with him in the sentiment that less is not more. This is probably my new favorite quote: “If you look at a Persian rug, you cannot say that less is more because you realise that every part of that rug, every change of colour, every shift in form is absolutely essential for its aesthetic success. You cannot prove to me that a solid blue rug is in any way superior.”  I feel this statement with my very soul. Less isn’t necessarily more, because the statement only means that less sometimes just suits an aesthetic, but it will always be different than something that is elaborate and worked. I feel like Milton’s statements should be compiled into a motivational poster for any design office/studio.  As for the second reading, I’m glad that the subject of false advertising was brought up. I never actually knew that Sunny Delight was so unhealthy (I drank it all the time as a kid). It’s definitely an ethical concern since this kind of thing is prevalent in so many aspects of advertisement, from the way food is portrayed in restaurant advertisements to something such as the controversy surrounding Quaker Oats, where the brand expected the original owners of its identity to relinquish their title to the cereal company. One example of this that wasn’t mentioned in the article was about the way models and celebrities are portrayed in media. Take fashion magazines, for example. It’s hard to find a cover photo of a celebrity whose body hasn’t been visually altered in some way. For women, they are usually made thinner and their skin tone is altered. Of course, the ramifications of this is an altered body image that often leads to mental afflictions such as eating disorders. I feel that the third and fourth readings are very closely related, so I’ll address them both in the next paragraphs. It is unfortunate that so many corporations present themselves in a positive light when they thrive on the misfortune of others. Some will go to extreme lengths to cover these kinds of things up. If that’s the case, how can designers know what exactly goes on? How can we ensure that our clients are squeaky clean? The truth is that nobody is 100% perfect. I agree with the author’s opinion that larger companies tend to have more dirt on their hands, and some are more obvious than others. But even smaller companies who do their best to stick to their moral code can sometimes cause issues even if they don’t intend to. For example, quinoa is a crop that has skyrocketed in popularity in the US as a superfood in recent years. While it’s a good sentiment to make such a healthy food available in the US, the reality is that the people who farm this quinoa in various places in South America are starving and being exploited. The quinoa that they lived on is now being exported to consumers in the US, and many people don’t even know it.  At the same time, I disagree with Monteiro in a few points. What I understand of his essay is that it’s hypocritical to work for corporations that violate one’s ethics in some way and to also work for charities as a way to offset that. I do agree with this to an extent. I also agree that designers should fully understand the ramifications of the work they are doing.

But whereas he claims that we cannot afford to be neutral, I’m going to have to disagree. In the US today especially, people are pressured to have strong opinions over a host of topics. And I believe this causes people to blindly label themselves according to one or a few specific beliefs they have. As a result, they simply adopt a set of beliefs related to that label. This is problematic because once someone becomes this biased, they become unable to comprehend all sides of an issue and cannot think for themselves - they simply follow the ideals of the label they chose. Sticking to your ethics is good, but blindly charging into activism just because someone told you to isn’t going to have a totally good effect on whoever is exposed to your work. This is especially dangerous since we, as designers, could use these biased sentiments to spread dangerous ideals that needlessly turn different groups of people against each other. That’s why it is absolutely okay for designers to be neutral in their opinions and work. If a designer has mixed feelings or any doubt over a topic, they should feel entitled to their opinion. But just because a designer can be neutral doesn’t mean they shouldn’t speak up. It’s important for designers to be truthful, as stated in Glaser’s talk. A designer has the right to promote an understanding of all sides of a topic, so that an individual can think as an individual and not as a hive mind. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Reading Response

I thought it was interesting that Spool referred to “making design pretty” as a meme. Anyways, it’s something I can identify with because that’s how the team of developers I work with used to refer to design. When I first started working at KeyLogic, my coworkers commented that “it’s nice that we have someone who can pretty things up”. They had good intentions, but they misunderstood. Of course, nowadays they’re fully aware that design is more than just an aesthetic process. 

I never thought about the revelation of design thinking as being the reason why the idea of design as being a purely aesthetic, last stage process. While it does seem like one of those trends that corporations use just to make money (as Spool said), it really did help elevate the importance of design and portray it as the in-depth process that it really is.

I also agree with the Design Professionalism article in that it’s important for designers to be well versed in many different areas, especially basic fine art ideals. I find that learning about many different subjects has enriched the way I design. I also agree that it’s important for designers to not only go through a formal program, but also go through self-driven study. 

In terms of the Design Census, a few things interested me. I thought it was odd that employees were concentrated in either small organizations or very large organizations. It is also peculiar that most designers work in in-house firms, and goes back to our previous readings that involved the absorbing of design firms into corporations. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Reading Response

I feel that this week’s readings illustrates some important points. My most important takeaway from the first reading is that design and engineering are beginning to blend together, and that designers are getting the help of engineers to design products. I think this is an important evolution in the journey of design because it opens up a lot of possibilities - more ways in which design can help people, such as Haiyan’s work in the last set of readings. As a result of this, I think many people will embrace the title of ‘designer’. If that’s the case, what will become of the original designers themselves? The next reading provides a case for that.  Like the first reading, this reading mentions how Adaptive Path was acquired Capital One and how John Maeda partnering with Kleiner Perkins. But this one focuses on the effects of designers who work in-house or in independent firms. On one hand, I believe that it can be a very good thing for a business to have in-house designers because it can give them the perspective necessary to make products that actually cater to the user’s needs, rather than focusing all efforts into selling the product. On the other hand, designers may not be able to spread their wings as far if they work at an in-house firm for a corporation. In this case, they would be focusing on the mindset of one single business. Therefore, they only become good at conveying that company’s ideals, and they don’t get experience with totally different businesses. These statements fall in line with the third reading as well. 

This then turns to Monteiro’s message that designers are responsible for selling their own work, and nobody else. It’s easy to see how this would be difficult to do for designers who work in firms owned by a corporation. Selling your designs is important for exposure and allowing others to see your abilities. Designers have the ability to help people in so many different ways, so it’s important that restrictions be kept to a minimum. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Reading Response - Designing for Life

This selection of readings has some deep subject matter. The recurring topic seemed to be about how design can be used to really help people, or how neglectful design can hinder or even marginalize people.  I never thought about how much of a hand design had in crowdsourcing applications. Juliana Rotich spoke about how crowdsourcing saved and continues to save the lives of people who live in areas afflicted by conflict, natural disasters, or censorship. It never completely occurred to me that design could make this kind of an impact. When I think of application design, I think of things such as social media, organizers, weather forecasting apps, games, or even health-tracking apps. I live a relatively worry-free life, so it didn’t completely occur to me that there are areas in the world where information about critical events goes unknown to impacted populations due to a lack of internet or because of censorship.  One thing that I thought was interesting about what Rotich said was about allowing people to “steal” ideas and build upon them. In the case of crowdsourcing, this practice is essential. We are inherently concerned with receiving credit for our creations. It is so much so that we refuse to let anyone else build upon it, which makes the design no longer solely ours. When people spend their free time helping others solve a problem or improve an idea, the product becomes more fortified very quickly because so many people from different perspectives are filling in the holes that could result in failure. This teamwork is what brings about successful designs. But I also think it’s important that a degree of ownership is still present.  This also goes out to Cameron Sinclair, who dedicates his design career to helping people in areas of conflict. He swears by the principle of having many others involved on a project. In order to truly help people, you need to consider ideas from more than one perspective. I really liked Sinclair’s comment about how designers should use their gift of design to help people, rather than doing what normal people would do. It speaks out to me because I’ve been trying to think of how I can use my design skill to actually help people. Currently, I just develop websites and design informational documents. My job isn’t extremely impactful, so I hope to one day help people like Rotich, Sinclair, and Haiyan.  Haiyan Zhang’s story is what touched me the most. As someone who is involved in the worlds of both design and computer science, I was amazed at how much she accomplished. Before watching this video, I had heard of the tremor-quelling device that she’d made for people with Parkinson’s. After learning that she also created an application to help a girl with short term memory loss and video games for kids undergoing breathing treatment for cystic fibrosis, it gave me hope that I could one day impact people in the same way. I was amazed at the amount of research she did to find out the inner workings of each issue, even if the information was unrelated to her fields of interest. I hope that I can do something like she has done.  As for hostile design, it is good to be aware of what might be hindering other people. Some is intentional, some of it is not. I agree that it’s important to create all-inclusive design. A complaint that I have in regards to this is the leg space on most airlines. I’m tall, my legs are long, and a lot of my family is the same. The leg space in airline seats is already cramped, so it’s extremely uncomfortable when the person in front of you leans back in their chair. In this way, I see airline seats as hostile design. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Design Reading Response

The main focus of these readings seems to be user experience design and perhaps its definition. Each of the articles mentions user experience design, but have something different to say in terms of the larger picture. 

About UX is very direct and clinical about their definition of user experience design. Their definition focuses more on the process of user experience design, primarily the user-centered aspect of it. User testing is present in every one of their steps. There are also user profiles and surveys. But what it doesn’t talk about are the actual products of this process. This can be linked to what Jesse James Garrett speaks about in The Memphis Plenary.

 Garrett’s main subject was information architecture and how, rather than being a profession, it should be classified more as a step in the process of UX design. He specifically mentions that IA professionals often speak only of the process of UX design and not of the product. Why is that? I think it’s because there is so much that could be identified as user experience design.

To me, UX is an umbrella term describing a range of results as well as different aspects of a process. That is what I get from these readings. While one can explain it in a simple, clinical manner such as in About UX, that won’t cover all that it really could be. And the trouble with it is that so many people are trying to define what it is that they are having difficulty identifying the great strides made in the area. Again, this is something that Garrett alluded to in his lecture. 

In What is Industrial Design?, industrial design is defined as “ is a discipline known for creating products and systems that optimize function, value and appearance for the mutual benefit of stakeholders involved.” Of course, this definition could be seamlessly applied to user experience design. It is in this way that a step in the process is being used to describe the process as a whole. In the article, however, UX is cited simply as an aspect of industrial design. This is why it gets confusing. 

To make matters even more complex, Merholz states his belief that each area of design is distinct from one another. However, I think he fails to see the possibility that different areas of design can blend together in terms of the product or service being made. 

In this case, aren’t all products and services aimed at users? Wouldn’t this make all design user design? Or rather, should all design be user design? I think that it should, because in order to make a successful product, we have to make sure that our stakeholders can benefit from it.

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Design Leadership Response

First off, I’ve never even heard of the position DEO. I feel that this highlights how understated the presence of design leaders is. Of course this is definitely not unheard of in design firms, it seems to be more of an issue in other companies who want to bring designers into their company to do work for them. Usually, the companies hiring these designers aren’t familiar with the process and therefore are unfamiliar with how much design leaders are needed. 

There are several themes that I noticed are common in all the articles: 1.Design leaders should be able to look at things from a close and far perspective, 2. Design leaders should be able to get stuff done without dragging out the ideating process, and 3. Design leaders should be a mix of intuitive and logical. Of course, I think the last is reasonable since design leaders are in charge not only of a creative process, but they must also plan ahead and manage many things, such as people, plans, and time. 

In relation to the above paragraph, something that I thought was interesting was the fact that Maria Giudice began her talk by describing how she began as an artist and ended up as a DEO. I can personally relate to this because I, too, started out on the far-art side of the spectrum. In order to get where she is at Autodesk, she had to learn various management skills as she went. 

With that said, based on all the readings, I feel as if becoming a DEO is something that you can prepare for all you want, but in order to earn your place you need to fill the role of the people you are managing and remember what it is like to be one of them. It is a reward of experience, not of inheritance (as it is with some CEO positions). 

From my understanding, being a DEO is like having two(or more) different jobs simultaneously. It would be like combining my current job with that of my boss - and my boss does everything. I work with a team of software developers, of which I am the only designer. My boss is our team leader, and he does basically everything that is described in these articles, but with design excluded. He manages and directs our team, speaks constantly with supervisors and other higher-ups (who are often our clients as well), and often works on many projects at a time. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Design Issues Reading Response 1

Of all the readings, I think that Jamin Hegeman’s article resonates the most with me. The main point of his article is that if we try to give a solid definition to design, “design would die”. I can see exactly what he means by this. If we gave design a complete definition, it would put a limit on what we could create. This limitation isn’t necessarily physical - but it would keep us from creating things that don’t fit our definition of design.There would be no experimentation, no coloring outside the lines.

 A prime example of this is the Academy of Art before the modern art movement.From the time the Renaissance started to the late 19th century, the Academy of Art defined what fine art was. This included things such as religious/mythological subject matter, realistically depicted human figures, and smooth, unseen brush strokes, etc. Anything outside of this was unthinkable. Because of this definition, the art world didn’t change very drastically for a few hundred years. It was only when Impressionism arose that the art world experienced revolutionary change that was never before seen. 

So then, what would happen if we defined design in such a matter? I imagine it would be similar to the situation of the fine art world. In that case, I also agree with Hegeman in that we should always strive for a definition, but never get there. This is because as we work for our goal, we find out many different things along the way. This idea is similar to Rob Peart’s article as he discussed the low-carbon building in Helsinki.

While Peart emphasized that design is not just problem-solving, his argument is in line with Hegeman’s article. By being goal-oriented and not trying to cater to every “problem”, those who worked on the low-carbon building were able to find benefits that affected lots of people who were outside the project - in fact, it changed the building code, allowing wood as a building material.

 In this circumstance, it is the journey that is more important than the destination. If we constantly attempt to define design, we will constantly experiment and “test” to see what can push the limits of design. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Design of Every Day Things Chapter 7 Response

The discussion on featuritis interested me because there is a lot to say on the product. I agree that electronics such as computers, tablets, and phone devices are probably the most prominent example of featuritis in our era. There are definitely a lot of aspects of these that many people don’t know how to use. This goes back to the washer example from a previous chapter. When thinking about featuritis, I usually think about electronics such as the ones mentioned above. What I thought was interesting was the author’s example using a lego motorcycle. It is not electronic (yet, anyways), but over the years the amount of parts needed to construct it have increased. One object I can think of that exhibits featuritis in a similar way is the shower head. 

Before, most shower heads flowed at a constant rate at a constant amount. Now, you can get shower heads that have many different spraying pattern options. For example, the one my family uses has an option for a wide-range, lower-pressure spray that is good for covering an entire body. Another option is to concentrate the spray into a narrow, high-pressured flow that’s good for rinsing conditioner from hair. I’ve even seen shower heads that have options that cut out the flow of the water in a pattern, kind of like in a garden sprinkler. Despite the many different new uses for the shower heads, I find each spray pattern useful for different things. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Design of Everyday Things Response

What I thought was most interesting was the talk about deliberately hard-to-operate objects, especially about the doors. In the case of the door, and also of the caps on most medicine bottles, the intent is to keep others safe (preventing children from leaving alone, and preventing children from accidentally ingesting medicine). There are also examples of products that are designed specifically to be hard to repair so that customers go to the company to pay for repairs. 

One such company is Apple. Unlike PCs, it is impossible to take apart a Mac in order to replace/fix parts. Instead, it must be taken to an Apple store, and the customer must pay sometimes large fees for something that could be fixed within two minutes, or otherwise problems that could be fixed manually if the customer had access to the insides of the machine. 

Though this example doesn’t apply to one party in particular, the general concept of planned obsolescence covers this same area. Technology, smartphones in particular, are designed so that they stop functioning within a few years of their launch. This forces customers to buy newer phones. While this can be seen as a kind of dirty tactic just to make money, it also gives the chance for newer technology to take the stage. Personally, I view the matter in both ways. It would be a better use of our resources to create technology that can accommodate advanced updates so that we don’t keep wasting material like we already do. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Art of Innovation Response

As I read the examples of prototypes that led to outcomes different than what was intended, I thought of one such example, which I’d read about online. When Play-Doh was invented in the 1950′s, it was originally intended to be used as a wallpaper cleaner. But as vinyl became more popular as a wall material (it could be washed with water and soap), play-doh’s purpose fell to the wayside. However, it was discovered that it made a good sculpting material, especially for kids. 

In regards to prototyping in general, I want to talk about a particular experience of my own. Last year at about this time in one of my design classes, I had to create a platform for my design statement. I decided to make a paper “doll” on which my text would exist. To build the physical doll, I referenced the structure of a ball-jointed doll. I built a prototype before making the full-scale version. For the joints, I decided to use rubber bands. The body parts were cubical in shape and made of paper. What resulted was a success, but also kind of a monster. It was vaguely human in shape and held together well, but it couldn’t stand and constantly flopped over. While I learned a lot from this prototype (that I had to make it out of thicker/stronger paper, and to use a stretchy material other than rubber bands), I truly felt that I created an abomination. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

The Art of Innovation Response

Chapter 12 talks a lot about how failures are important. In terms of failures of big companies, one thing I can cite is Crystal Pepsi. I wasn’t there to witness the phenomenon, but I’ve heard enough about it from my family. Basically, Pepsi released a clear, caffiene-free version of its drink, and it didn’t catch on because it tastes exactly like regular Pepsi. Another famous failure I can cite from experience is Heinz’s EZ Squirt ketchup. I tried it in green and purple, but since I was a kid, I was completely put off by the colors and ended up not liking it. Of course, these failures cost their companies. I also agree that restricting the number of features in your product is important. This relates especially well to my group’s project, designing a product that is essentially a dog walking kit. It needs to allow the user to bring water, food, and perhaps other things. We’ve also talked about leash extensions, such as harnesses. But we need to be careful that we’re not overloading it with too many functions, or else the target audience might feel overwhelmed.  

[tamiller1-productdesign]

The Art of Innovation Response

On the topic of accidentally successful products, one example I want to cite is the color mauve. Its creator, William Henry Perkin, was challenged by his professor to synthesize quinine. Instead, he ended up with a black solid that could dye fabric mauve. This happened in the 1850′s-60′s, and at the time it was patented, it became wildly popular as a color for dresses. It was the first synthetic dye ever created.

Kelly lists 7 ways to cross-pollinate. I personally believe that playing director and changing hats are the most effective. Watching a certain group of people and then temporarily becoming one of those people are incredibly powerful ways to understand the issue you want to address. The mention of making employees try to make PB&J’s while blindfolded is a simple yet striking way of illustrating the struggles of the blind. In terms of designing an experience, one thing that I think needs to be talked about is Colonial Williamsburg. The entire town is an experience. As a district of Williamsburg, VA dedicated to preserving colonial culture, its residents must also be in on the action. For this, I’ll cite an article featuring information derived from a person who grew up in Colonial Williamsburg. http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1842-5-insane-realities-my-life-in-fake-colonial-town.html These people don’t just work in the experience, they live and breathe the experience. I believe we can learn a lot from how these people present themselves and their town when designing experiences, even though it’s more for the purpose of preserving the past than promoting a product. If we reach their level of dedication, our chances of success will rocket. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

Design of Everyday Things Response

As this chapter is about errors, it made me think about errors in terms of computer languages. Specifically, I want to talk about designing things specifically to overcome errors. In computer science, this is called error handling. We design programs specifically to anticipate different situations in which the user may input things incorrectly. We have to anticipate exactly which problems the user may cause, and it’s basically a case of “if the user inputs this, do this one action/give an error message”. I believe I can apply this mindset to product design. Another thing I want to mention is the “design” of certain languages. The computer language C, for example, can easily be used for malicious purposes. It’s a language that directly converses with the computer in machine language, which means that it’s easy to change things within the operating system. It is through this language that many hackers operate, because it’s easy to damage the internal software workings of the computer; not only that, but it can be used on a massive scale. Though it’s one of the most commonly used computer languages, it’s very vulnerable to cyber attacks. I don’t want to call it a poorly designed language, but it’s an example of something with a design that allows for many errors (and some severe ones at that) to be made. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

The Art of Innovation Reading Response

One theme that occurs not just in this chapter, but throughout the whole book is making work equivalent to fun, and play at the workplace. I think this is super important, because my own personal process of work involves lots of breaks and doing enjoyable things while working, such as watching TV or listening to music. For me, spending hours and hours and hours straight doing my work is soul-draining. And as Kelly states, passion is what drives the best work. This is something I can wholeheartedly agree with. In workplaces, this is necessary. I can see it in the place where I work.

I work for KeyLogic Systems, and currently my team is working on-site at the Department of Energy. I work as a graphic design intern with a team of developers, and right now I primarily do web design work. My boss is pretty lenient, and he allows us to do things like watching youtube videos, reading news articles, browsing Facebook, etc. as long as we’re getting our work done. One of my coworkers always watches League of Legends videos, and at least two of my coworkers are known for watching anime as they work. You might think that these habits discourage productivity, but my team is extremely successful, and KeyLogic as a whole has a great reputation, winning the 2014 Department of Energy Small Business of the Year award. Another example of fun at the workplace that I can relate to is the fact that my boss likes to prank us. If we leave our computers unlocked while we’re away from our cubicles, my boss makes a screenshot of our desktop, proceeds to put all the contents of the dekstop into one folder, and sets the screenshot of our desktop as our new background image. When the unlucky coworker comes back, he can’t actually open any of his folders because it’s a screenshot. My boss can do this at amazing speed, but luckily, it hasn’t happened to me yet.  I agree with Kelly in that Big Brother-esque workplaces promote productivity that is as stiff as their guidelines. Also, I find that the bit about the teacher making his students argue why they deserve an A is interesting. It is stated to be a confidence building exercise. I see the reason in this because it forces students to think of their good qualities.

The talk about workspace is something I can relate to. During my time at KeyLogic, I’ve had a good amount of freedom in decorating my cube. When I worked in a cube at headquarters (I work on site at the Department of Energy now), I put a bunch of random stuffed animals throughout my cube, and it was perfectly fine. At the Dept. of Energy, I have it decorated with calendars, Christmas tinsel, and a bunch of snowflake decorations that I didn’t have room for in my room. I do think that if we didn’t have the freedom of decorating our cubes, work would be more dismal. 

[tamiller1-productdesign]

The Design of Every Day Things Chapters 3 & 4 Response

I feel that the story of Alibaba and Kassim was a bit over the top in reference to remembering passwords, but it definitely gets the point across. At the same time, it illustrates the all-too-real struggle. 

When Norman starts talking about memory, it feels as if I’m reading a totally different book. It’s just as you said, though, understanding psychology is necessary to understand consumers. But to what degree should our knowledge be? Understanding how people think is vital to understanding the problems they face and how they may interact with your designs. I also feel that it’s important not to overanalyze and do what comes naturally. On the same topic of memory, I’ve read in several places that whenever you recall a memory, you’re actually remembering the last time you remembered it. This is why memories become less clear or change over time. This is also why I think we tend to romanticize things that are far gone in time, such as high school, for many middle-aged adults and older. We may remember the great times we had, but we also forget how miserable it was to wake up at 6am every morning and have every single one of our classes in one day, among other things. However, even this is something we can connect design to. Even if our memories aren’t completely clear, what we seek most are the emotions they make us feel. Therefore, appealing to nostalgia is something worth talking about. It seems to have become especially popular recently, when referencing the whole 90′s kid movement. Along with many reboots of old shows or movies, such as PowerPuff Girls or Scooby Doo, people today are trying to appeal to a seemingly carefree era that many young adults yearn to return to today, myself included.

In terms of external knowledge, electronics are a godsend. I forget things way too easily. I’m pretty much dependent on the app Wunderlist, which keeps track of various to-do lists, which things are due, when they’re due, and other information on them. But does being this dependent on external knowledge make me mentally weaker? I think not. I’ve read in several places (whose sources I don’t remember, ironically) that forgetting unimportant things easily is a mark of an efficient mind. This is a display of the brain’s ability to quickly get rid of information that it doesn’t need. Therefore, when we declutter our brains by writing things down, we can avoid overwhelming our brains with huge amounts of information so we can focus on things that are presently most important. 

I had never thought about the fact that silent cars are a danger to blind people. The author posed the solution of putting pebbles in the hubcaps, so that the sound would get quieter the faster the car goes. I want to extend this, because I absolutely can’t stand annoying noises. I live in the country, so I drive on a lot of backroads. This means that, a lot of times, I’m not going extremely fast like you would on a highway. If I had to hear the incessant rattling of stones in my hubcaps for an entire drive, I think I would go insane. At the same time, accommodations for the visually impaired should be the most important consideration in this situation.