Objectified Page #4

---

There was a quality about it, it was like a womb, it

was like an extension of us, somehow.

It was soft, it was engaging. And I used to have this

alarm clock radio, a Braun,

that Dieter Rams designed in the late '60s.

And they were these objects in my life that I really

was in love with, they brought so much to me.

And I can remember going through the teenage

angst thing, of feeling depressed or something,

and lying on my bed, and I would just look at the

alarm clock, and felt better immediately.

So I always had this really strong relationship with

physical products.

There's something that moves through a lot of my

forms, and that is to speak about a kind of

digital, technological, or techno-organic world.

Somehow if I do things that are very,

very organic, but l'm using new technologies, I feel

like l'm doing something in a way

that's a physical interpretation of the digital age.

We have advanced technologically so far, and yet

somehow it's some sort or paranoia where we're

afraid to really say We live in the third technological

revolution. I have an iPod in my pocket,

I have a mobile phone, I have a laptop, but then

somehow I end up going home and sitting on

wood-spindled Wittengale chairs. So in a way you

could argue that we're building all these

really kitsch stage sets, that have absolutely

nothing to do with the age in which we live.

It's strangel. I find it extremely perverse, in a way. I

mean imagine right now, l'm sitting here on my

Iaptop, and l've got to go out. What am I going to

do, get in my horse and carriage? Of course not!

Why do we feel like we need to keep revisiting the

archetype over and over again?

Digital cameras, for example, their format and

proportion, the fact that they're a horizontal

rectangle, are modeled after the original silver film

camera. So in turn it's the film that defined

the shape of the camera. All of the sudden our

digital cameras have no film.

So why on earth do we have the same shape we

have. Now without sounding like a hypocrite,

I revisit archetypes, l've designed many chairs. With

that given, you say, okay now l'm going to design

a chair. What can I do here? How can I put my

fingerprint on it and differentiate it from everyone

else and every other designer? And am I playing a

game to show I can differentiate?

or am I actually really doing something that is

contributive? Because the big issue with design is,

are the things we are doing really making an affect

and making change?

the world is uncomfortable. You feel it.

You feel that hotel rooms are poorly designed, you

sit in chairs that are very uncomfortable.

And it's craziness. Imagine that if you design a

million chairs to date, or however many chairs have

been done in the world, why on earth should we

have an uncomfortable chair?

There's no excuse whatsoever.

People need to demand that design performs for

them and is special in their lives.

these objects that they buy.

If you can't make your GPS

thing work in your car,

there should be a riot because

they're so poorly designed.

Instead, the person sits there and thinks, "Oh, l'm

not very smart, I can't make this GPS thing work."

I can't make the things work! This is my field and l

can't make them work!

If you design something that's precious and that

you really love, you're never going to leave that.

My father's briefcase, made out of a beautiful piece

of leather, gets better with use. And l've inherited it

and l'll pass it on, right? It's a really interesting

thing, sometimes I get that task which is:.

design something that gets better with use. There's

very few things, they mostly degrade, but...

some things like this briefcase get better with use.

Now that's a pretty sweet tick-over, don't you think?

I like the concept of wearing in

rather than wearing out.

You'd like to create something where the emotional

relationship is more satisfying over time.

And you may not worry about it, or think about it...

people don't have to have a strong

Iove relationship with their things, but they should

grow a little more fond of them over time.

For example on the laptop that I designed, it's

actually a magnesium enclosure

but it has paint on the outside. And when it gets

dinged, if it's dropped and

a bit of paint chips off and you see some of the

magnesium showing through,

somehow it feels better because of that.

The computer we call the Grid Compass, the

Compass computer, arguably the first laptop

that was actually ever produced is this one. You

could carry it with you, we designed it to be

thin enough to fit in half your briefcase, so you

could put papers in as well.

Then there was a leg at the back that flipped down,

to put it at the right angle, for using

the ergonomic preferred angle of 11 degrees. We

wanted to devise a hinge that would allow it

to rotate so the display could come up, but also not

let anything into the electronics behind.

So in order to avoid something like a pencil falling

into it, let me just show you what could happen,

if you put a pencil on the back it would roll down

and drop inside. I designed a scoop,

that would then self-eject the pencil when you

closed it.

That was a little trick.... of that.

When I got the first working prototype, I took the

machine home, really thrilled about

wanting to use it myself. And it was with great pride

that I opened up the display and thought

how clever I was to have designed this latch and

this hinge and all this stuff.

And then, I started to actually try and use it. And

within a few moments, I found myself

forgetting all about my physical design, and

realizing that everything I was really interested in

was happening in my relationship between what

was happening behind the screen.

I felt like I was kind of being sucked down inside the

machine, and the interaction between me

and the device was all to do with the digital software

and very little to do with the physical design.

That made me realize that if I was going to truly

design the whole experience, I would really have

to learn how to design this software stuff.

That made me search for a name for it,

which we ended up calling interaction design.

Arguably the biggest single challenge facing every

area of design right now is sustainability.

It's no longer possible for designers to ignore the

implications of continuing to produce

more and more new stuff that sometimes we need,

and sometimes we don't need.

Designers spend most of their time designing

product and services for the 1 0%%% of the world's

population that already own too much, when 90%%%

don't have even basic products and services

to lead a subsistent life.

Although a lot of designers believe emotionally and

intellectually in sustainability,

they and the manufacturers they work for are

finding it very difficult to come to terms with.

Because sustainability isn't some sort of pretty,

glamorous process of using recycled materials

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes