Design Is About Intent

A well-written piece about design and intent. It is a good read and a very good snapshot of the current state of affairs in design and technology.

Rampant Innovation

The most admired companies of each age are often associated with a certain core competency. Ford popularized assembly line manufacturing in the 1910s. Toyota kicked off the lean revolution with its Toyota Production System in the postwar years. GE’s enthusiastic adoption of Six Sigma in the ’90s spread the mantra of quality. These capabilities are credited with helping transform the respective industry of each company.

Apple is unquestionably the most admired company in the world today. So what is Apple’s defining capability?

Lest there be any doubt, they told us last summer: Apple is about design. It’s what they value, teach, and celebrate, and it’s what has enabled them to revolutionize industry after industry with innovative products and business models. 

Design as the New Management Tool

Largely due to Apple’s unprecedented success, design has recently become extremely fashionable in the broader business imagination:

A selection of recent headlinesDesign

Business gurus like

View original post 1,943 more words


Thinking (it) through (by) Making

One of the things I am fascinated with is the creative process. That’s why I really wanted to know what happens when you design something without really thinking. This became an experiment around going through the design process in reverse.

Mind you that, this approach is very different from my usual professional one and a bit painful for me. So I thought, “why not just jump in?” So I started off by creating a pen within 20 minutes. I modeled something in Alias, uploaded to Shapeways and just forgot about it.

pen01Receiving the package was relatively pleasant, since I had no expectations whatsoever. I inserted a ballpoint cartridge. It was easy to hold and write with. Even when sketching, it was a good pen.

After I tried it out for a month or so, it was very obvious that it needed a cap. I designed (more like modeled) a cap in less than 15 minutes. It took me longer to find a magnet that fitted the thickness of the pen.

DSC_0462So far, I am not content with the what I have. The cap does not align itself with the pen properly to begin with. I guessed that this might happen but I tried not to care. The slanted cut was probably my subconscious effort in preventing this. But that is a small part of the problem.

The big one is that there is no way of attaching or clipping this pen to my Moleskine notebook.

A professor once told me: “design is planning”. Even though I think this is a very one-dimensional way of thinking about design, I can’t help but admit that the lack of planning is painful in design – even as an experiment.

It is interesting to understand the complexity of a simple thing, but in small portions. Stay tuned as I try to find a way to attach this pen to my notebook.

Good is Better than Best

Marketing and sales loooves to sort things as “good, better, best”. It is simple, easy and catchy. But is it meaningful, especially for product development and design? Hardly…

Voltaire once said, “best is the enemy of good”. The trouble with the “best is the greatest, better is ok and good is just meh” approach is that–well–it does not make sense. For starters, the good is obviously a separate category than better or best. The latter two belong to the terminology of comparison, whereas good is simply a quality that can be assigned to things that prove themselves and survive the scrutiny of real world.

Especially in the product world, striving to create a “best” does not necessarily yield a “good” result. Take the example of a camera. What is really the “best” camera? Is it the one that has the ultimate picture quality? Or is it the most portable one? Most of the time, the users want a reasonable amount of everything. They don’t really want to haul around a full frame DSLR when all they want is a good hike and snap a few landscape pictures. That brings us to the poor old “good” which never gets the cookie among all the fancy comparatives and superlatives. A well thought-through product is going to appear meaningful and simply “good” to its users.

When designing, there is nothing wrong with trying to be the best or better but your success hinges on what the reference is. Here lies a special caveat for “better”. Taking a competitor as a reference is not a healthy habit for design. That means looking over your shoulder constantly, instead of focusing on the one important thing, your users. Especially in a competitive landscape where intellectual property is more valuable than diamonds, getting ahead of your competition by just trying to be better is a fool’s dream. Instead, keeping your eye on the ball which is not your profit, not your revenue or your next quarter, not even your awards, but your end user, is the key.

If you want to be better than your competition, yes, by all means, improve. But not in reference to them. I usually accept the challenge but I try to do it the way I believe, without falling into the abyss of comparison.

Redesigning Industrial Design

Industrial design has a history of almost a hundred years. Despite an established history, it is obvious that few other professions in the world has such a disputed definition. There are a few reasons for that of course. First of all some might argue that industrial design does not have a well-known and agreed-on reason d’etre. Is it safe to say that ‘making things beautiful’ is a good enough reason for a whole profession to exist? Or does this profession exist to make things work well for the human beings that use them? If so, doesn’t that part of the mission intersect painfully with other professions like engineering and human factors? How about idea generation? Can’t we at least own that? Probably not. Product managers, product planners and the like are a marking that territory for years now and they’re ready to own it. So what is it really that makes industrial design so special?

At its best, ID cares about all of the above – aesthetics, function, ideation and much more – all at the same time. And since it cares about all of it at the same time, it cannot care for any of them enough. Aesthetics, is probably the easiest part of the whole equation to explain, since there rarely is need for an explanation when something looks beautiful. It is the easiest to sell, too. It is also the unique part of the craft that cannot be owned by anybody else. A unique angle is great but should it really be the only angle?

Interaction Design, Service Design, User Experience Design are all breeds of this hundred-year old behemoth, one way or the other. Embarrassingly though, somehow all these new kids on the block suddenly seem more interested in the well-being of the end user than ID has ever been. How did that happen? Weren’t we the sole advocate of the user in any given conference room? Maybe the proverbial student beats the master every time.

It is curious that there is a distinction between a Visual Designer and an Interaction Designer in the digital world. A distinction that has never been established within ID. A Visual Designer is concerned solely with the appearance of the screens, the transitions, the icons, the visual quality of the overall interface. Where as interaction designer is the person who solely cares about how the product is going to be used, utilized, misused, abused. One can ask the question of whether this distinction is completely necessary or not. The better question that I am curious about is did we, as industrial designers, become the visual designers of the product world? Did we forget about the part of our profession that really, and deeply cares about the user?

I have been the witness and the participant of many incidents where industrial designers were defending aesthetic details that had nothing to do with actual user benefits. Full disclosure, I have been also an active participant of this mis-prioritization in some instances. I have also seen these type of discussions hurting not only the end users but also the reputation of ID within an organization or in the society in general. Many times, I also tried to protect what little has left of the respect for the end user during design processes. But why is it so hard for a designer to focus on what is actually important?

Money sometimes is the focal of these discussions. Especially when short-term financial goals are prioritized, end user is forgotten. Design makes money and if the design team is pushed to create shelf value, it makes money faster. However, it is not a good enough reason for ID to lose its focus.


It saddens me that every time somebody talks about User Experience, there is a high-resolution display involved as a delivery system. Can’t there be good user experience without a high-resolution display? Better yet, without any display? I believe there can be. And there should be. There is a very good reason why Bill Moggridge thought of Industrial Designers as perfect candidates for Interaction Design. ID has the innate ability to look beyond the looks of things, discover patterns in behavior and furthermore turn these findings into tangible results as products. Nothing in this process dictates that aesthetics take the front seat so comfortably, leaving no room for any other criteria. Designing products should be a intermediary tool, not the end goal. The end goal should be the quality of user’s experience with a system, the impression, the benefit, the stimulation, the learning, the pleasure… Note that none of these say aesthetics necessarily.

But let’s be clear. I think we all crave beauty in our lives. We seek out beauty. We strive to be beautiful. We want it by our side day in and day out. Even so, is it the static beauty that we ultimately want? Is it the way that an object is lying dead on the coffee table that turns our fancy on? Or is it the beauty when the product is used, the motion or the animation of system? I believe it is the moment when the user utters the phrase “Wow! They have thought of everything”.

“It all starts with a sketch” many designers say. A sketch is merely a 2D representation of an idea. When you add another dimension to it, you have a mockup or a 3D model. What is it when you add the dimension of time to the mix? Is it a prototype? If it works, yes!  The power of prototyping is long known among designers and engineers. A prototype for an engineer is albeit a very different animal. Since an engineer is there to implement a function, he makes the prototype for testing. For a long time, from the designer’s perspective, a prototype was something that an engineer made. Or maybe it was something that is concocted out of whatever piece of cardboard is left over in the studio. It was not seen as a tool to explore. More a tool to convince.

For a 19th century craftsman, the grandfather of the modern designer, ensuring a good experience was not the goal. It didn’t need to be. He has already learned how to make another variation of something that has been tried and seemingly perfected for years. There was no reason for doubt. Also for the early years of design, experience prototyping was irrelevant since design was usually limited to ornamentation only. But the giants of Industrial Design towards the mid century understood what “keeping the user happy” or “making things” can improve. A good example of this is the way that Walter Dorwin Teague created a full mockup of the first commercial jet plane interior together with the simulated engine noise, stewardesses and fully functioning seats.

What we need to acknowledge is that prototyping can gain a new meaning in the hands of industrial designers – especially those who work with things that have interactive components. This is because the prototype, more than a model or a visualization, can represent or simulate the experience of the end user. We live in an era with so many accessible tools to prototyping experiences that, we can no longer excuse ourselves with the lack of technical skills. We can no longer get away with saying “imagine when you touch here, this thing will light up”. With tools like rapid prototyping, Arduino, Raspberry Pi, MakeyMakey, Touchboard and many more, we can take the power back and make peace with the tools that once belonged to the engineers. The classical way of designing; research, sketching, modeling, polishing, refining is far from enough for the profession of Industrial Design to survive the 21st century. Interaction Design has already taken this path without hesitation with great examples coming especially from students from Umea Institute of Design, Copenhagen Institute of Interaction Design, MIT and many more.

A design that is static can fool anyone. What we have always heard from our teachers was to just mock-it-up quickly. A clay model or a rough foam mockup can definitely add the necessary 3rd dimensional insight but… A mockup always seems like it has the potential of turning into a great product. Usually though, great mockups that do not work, end up fooling the designers themselves more than anybody. Even the lowest fidelity experience prototype is ten times more useful than the greatest looking mockup. The designer will see more flaws in his creation through the eyes of the user with something “working almost as if” than something that “looking almost as if”. Better yet, though, the designer will explore more potential by letting real people touch the ideals of his imagination than putting them on a pedestal and protecting them. By improving our tools, we can also improve our point-of-view. The power of making things work beautifully is surely more attractive than making beautiful things.