Delivering Design

I am aware that my blog has a slightly negative tinge to it, in the sense that I am constantly complaining about things. The problem is, I don't think good design is actually that hard. Hear me out.

If we look back at 'good design' that has come in the past, and more specifically at conditions that have given birth to consistent production of good design, it seems like the inability of companies to deliver good design and good quality is not due to a lack of good design or engineering talent. A book I am reading at the moment, Strategic Manufacturing for Competitive Advantage (It's a real slog) illustrates that companies, in their narrow focus on short term margins and shareholder satisfaction, have failed to invest or consider production capability as an aspect of their company strategy. The same can be said for design.

The shining example of 'good design' we are often exposed to as design student's is Dieter Ram's work for Braun. And there is no denying Dieter Rams' talents. But it is not a story of one man, or even one design team's talents, what actually happened at Braun in the 1950's was an idealistic and enthusiastic environment was developed by the Braun brothers, the Ulm school, and others, which became a machine for churning out classic after classic.

The same can be seen at Apple, the current shining example of 'Good Design'. As talented as the design teams are, and they are, the real story of Apple is how Steve Jobs enabled a company to develop and thrive under a product-first mantra.

We can also see that when a company hires design talent, whithout the real corporate attitude to actually deliver good design, then what results is at best a flash in the pan. Samsung have consulted both Naoto Fukasawa and Jasper Morrison, both incredibly talented, Fukasawa's N310 laptop looks to be aesthetically pleasing, but seems like it would never be competition to anything apple would produce, on the basis that it is probably hampered by a low quality of software and hardware, things that have been purposely placed out of reach of the designer by financial interests. The same is likely true for Morrison's phone and refrigerator.

Jasper Morrison's Samsung Camera Phone

In any case these objects, good design as they are, have very clearly not affected the overall strategy and approach of the samsung juggernaut. Whereas, when the very same designers work for MUJI, the attitude and relationship is much more considered, as the company believes in design, and as a result better products, and long term prosperity (at least from a design perspective).

Naoto Fukasawa's Toaster for MUJI

I think then that the history of design, in many cases can be seen, not as a history of designers, but a history of design enablers. These people are sometimes forgotten (sometimes not), but basically, design which has actually been delivered to peoples houses and made a difference requires both design talent, and an enthusiasm from above in order to allocate for the proper delivery of good design.

beme

I would list Casey Neistat is a personal inspiration, he is famous for his youtube videos, which are bare-bones yet extremely well executed. Make It Count and Bike Lanes are two good examples of his style. Although primarily a filmmaker, I have always seen him as, if not a designer then a design critic. Many of his videos, such as the Gold Apple Watch and Build an iPhone Dock for $1, can be read actually as a serious design manifesto, as relevant as anything by Karim Rashid or Naoto Fukasawa.

His design manifesto, it seems, is that: A) Products are tools; B) Customisation is king; and C) If you can make something yourself, then do. This is a design manifesto which probably can't be realised as a product on the capitalist marketplace, primarily because things need to be sold, and a company can't sell the idea that you should make it yourself.

The introduction of beme, his new video sharing app, is very interesting; now Neistat is standing up as a real designer, vision and all.

His vision is to change social media, from a platform of narccisistic showing off, into a genuine reflection of how people are living their lives. The video sharing app forbids users from looking at their own image as they take videos, and uploads and deletes them in a short space of time. The message is positive, and I personally haven't gotten into Snapchat and Instagram, so it speaks to me.

I really hope it takes off, if only because I want a success story for Neistat, but there are a few obstacles in the way. Wired have just reported that they feel the problem will be that authenticity is boring. We'll see, but I do feel that Neistat's message is to 'do more' and maybe he sees his platfrom as a way of encouraging that. I don't think that really the article gets it right because Casey has shown us, in his Vlogs, just how interesting normal life can be.

Another obstacle is that it really will be hard to convince people to be authentic. It will be interesting to see how the app develops, maybe, due to the entry-code situation the positive message has a better chance of prevailing, as only enthusiastic people are currently using it now.

More remains to be seen, we are only on version 0.4, with more promised for next week, I personally wonder how beme plans to monetise, and how much the functionality will evolve, or if it will remain steadfast to change.

Western Archtecture

Western Architecture, by R.Furneaux Jordan, attempts to condense the history of architecture in western culture into a book of 359 pages. It's a good book, good as an introduction to the general timeline of architecture, and is well illustrated for a small paperback, however it is a little rushed, with significant architects often only getting brief mentions. This is not a book review however, I only want to convey a few of the things the book has shown me.

The first significant point is that, contrary to what I assumed before, the four basic original styles, which were to be recycled again and again: Greek, Roman, Gothic, and Byzantine; are all based on specific and significant innovations.

Greece architecture was no more structurally innovative than stonehenge, however they did perfect this language of columns and slabs. The Roman innovation was the arch, which gave birth to both the basic dome and the basilica (a long vaulted building or structure). The Gothic Innovation was the pointed arch, which when combined in a cross, allowed for flexible, rectangular vaults; This is why the architecture of England, France and Germany expanded both lengthways and skyward. The architecture that evolved eastward, into the lands of Greece and Turkey, and later Russia and the Middle East, was based on an entirely different principle, the Byzantine innovation was the pendentive, a way of efficiently combining a dome with a square section; this is why early architecture in these lands was based on grand, blocky domed spaces.

What this drives home is that, besides the obvious decoration added by artisan builders, these buildings were essentially structurally logical. This is something perhaps the early modernists forgot, as they panicked to adopt steel, concrete and glass as the language of the future. As nowadays we see the concrete buildings of only 60 years ago crumble and deteriorate, and as the buildings of relevance, homes and community places, fail to adopt the modernist standard; stone and brick deserves not to be forgotten by contemporary architecture, and with this should come an appreciation of the structural language of these historic forms.

The second point of interest is that over time, we see a narrative of the war between Romanticism and Rationalism. From decorated gothic to plain Renaissance, from Baroque extravagance to the formalism of Neo-Classical.

This is of extreme importance, as it shows modernism not as something as revolutionary was first thought. It seems just to be part of an endless rinse-and-repeat cycle: people get bored of rational design, then they feel suffocated by excess. I believe that this teaches that designers and architects genuinely interested in benefiting humankind, must be more considerate when proposing radical change: as we have learned from Le Corbusier, radical change will meet radical reaction, missing out on the real question of who should benefit from the power of design.

I have grown up as an avid admirer of modernist Architecture and Design, visiting Mies Van Der Rohe's Barcelona Pavilion last year was a numinous experience, to me it was a better proposal for the future than the admittedly impressive Sagrada Familia. But it is important for us as Designers to consider the history, meaning  and intentions behind what has preceded us. I am not suggesting we adopt the pastiche, excess and extravagance of the generations before us, but it would be harmful for us to treat them as philistines.

Innovation

A close friend recently said something which mirrored a lot of what I have seen being banded about since the death of Steve Jobs. They said 'Apple is an innovation company'. I believe this perspective to be both narrow and destructive.

To portray Apple as an innovation company is wrong firstly because many of the 'innovations' that Apple have delivered are either not unique or have been developed separately. For example, the iPod was, technically, just another audio device; the iPhone wasn't the first candy bar touchscreen phone; and, of course, the first mouse UI was developed by Xerox. This is an argument a lot of 'fandroids' use to portray Apple in a negative light.

Secondly, and more positively, I believe Apple aren't an 'Innovation' company, because they are a 'Design' company. To illustrate this I will use Dieter Ram's 10 principles, cliche', but not on the ill-conceived view that Rams = Apple, but just as I believe the principles are a good way of illustrating the goals of 'Design with a capital D' in general.

Apple and Dieter Rams are seen as philosophically linked because their products seem to attempt to resolve the 10 Principles. Therefore, innovation can be shown to make up only 1/10 of Apple's intellectual groundwork. This is why I define Apple as a 'Design' company. A company which, basically, strives primarily to deliver the best product to consumers.

What then, is an 'Innovation' company? Something like either Dyson or Nintendo: Companies who aim to seperate themselves from the competition by using  a tactic of consistent development and re-introduction of the core product. Dyson under James Dyson, and Nintendo under Shigeru Miyamoto, can be seen as companies led in their mission by prolific inventors. Steve Jobs and/or Jony Ive, figureheads of Apple, are not inventors, they are 'product people'. Apple have not relied on innovation, for example to keep their MacBook or iMac lines ahead of the competition, as besides obvious technical advancements, they have remained conceptually  unchanged since the mid 2000's.

Sadly, markets currently are led by neither by Innovation nor Design companies. They are in general led by what I will define as 'Marketing' companies: Companies such as Proctor and Gamble, who rely not on good , or different, product, but on relentless use of marketing strategies. Products are re-vamped on the basis of sales or market research, and consumers are then convinced into buying product on the basis of marketing campaigns. No one can explain how Duracell batteries are better than any other comparable Alkaline battery, but they remain, inexplicably, the market leader.

Common symptoms of the marketing-led product lineup are: needless differentiation within the range, based on precisely targeting different types of consumer (maximising spread); needless, consistent and mainly visual, 'updates' to products on a predictable timeframe (pseudo-innovation); and tiered lineups, based mainly on adding useless features, and not improving core functionality (upselling). Shaving, Automobiles and Kitchen appliances are examples of markets almost totally consumed by these approaches.

Why is the perception that Apple is an Innovation company destructive? Firstly, competing companies, basing their strategy on 'innovation', probably not managed as well as at Apple, will take the market away from a product-first approach as companies rush to force out any appearance of progress, a net loss for consumers who were initially pleased to have been rescued from the 'feature phone' mess that was the market pre-iPhone.

Secondly, if Apple's success during the Steve Jobs period is misconstrued as success due to innovation, investor pressure could force Apple to rush to market with weak products. Steve Jobs' genius move was to filter down the product lineup and focus on quality. This was major, as it accelerated the halo effect, because the Apple lineup was prescriptive, that is, a consumer would see the whole line up and believe they needed all of it. A watered down lineup would give the recently-converted consumer a scary amount of choice.

In conclusion, I believe that 'Design' companies are best placed to deliver positive change to consumers. This is partly obvious, as the design process is completely about assessing the needs of consumers, not manipulating their desires, or forcing though technologies of dubious benefit. Examples of 'Design' companies would be Apple, Vitsoe and OXO, among others. Note, a 'Design' approach does not necessarily guarantee competence! (i'm still waiting for a LAMY that doesn't piss it's way though 2 cartridges a week).

Car Interiors

Car interiors suck. They are designed by someone with 'passion' and a loose pencil hand, and the resulting swoopy, 'organic', 'wraparound' interiors are ill equipped to deal with the realities of life: they are hard to clean and hoover, as crumbs collect in tiny crevices; storage spaces are arbitrary in size and shape, and difficult to fit anything useful into; sitting in anything but the prescribed manner is a painful experience; and controls lend themselves to the overall shapes of the interior, and not to the human form.

As we have learned from gaming controllers and OXO Good Grips, 'ergonomic' does not necessarily mean smooth, bulbous and arbitrary. I propose the 'Car interior for selfish people' :

A selfish person in this case is a consumer who demands that the interior works for themselves and not to fulfil other auxiliary functions.

The interior attempts to maximise interior space by reducing on the space usually conceded to some injection moulded plastic form. Rectangular, hinged storage spaces can be taken out for clearing and lend themselves to tablets, magazines and wallets. The multimedia control system would be a blend of Tesla's system and Doko by Andrew Kim. Rectangular modules make up most of the functional components of the interior, and therefore provide a wide scope for add-on options, without the blank button problem that the carefully detailed interiors of today suffer from.

Color is a extremely important aspect. On any kind of sunny day, I find car interiors to be sickeningly warm, as the black interiors that come as standard (it's almost impossible to find a light-coloured basic cloth interior) absorb so much heat when parked. Therefore almost all of the passive surfaces in the interior are a light and clear color. Surfaces at risk of becoming soiled by mud or spilled drinks are either dark or wipe clean.

Is this kind of interior feasible? Probably not when used in conjunction with the distraction that is contemporary exterior design. Kei cars in Japan are very good at maximising interior space, but aren't available in the west, and cars like the Nissan Cube end up being sold as 'design' cars, having no real impact on the mass-market.

Delivering a competent, totally-designed package to the car market however, would be far from impossible. What it would require, however, would be a total abandonment of the principles of car design that are deeply embedded in the current corporations, media outlets and educational establishments.