It’s February, which means it’s that time again… Distill-PD recently combed through 150 entries across multiple categories to help select finalists for the 2017 IHA Innovation Awards. Winners will be featured in the New Product Showcase at this year’s Housewares Show in March. This wasn’t our first rodeo – Douglas Carpiaux has participated for a handful of years and was an on-site judge for the IHA Student Design Competition in 2009. Looking forward to the show next month – expect we’ll see a few of you there!
As 2016 draws to a close, we count our collaborations as our most precious highlights – understanding that the experiences we explore and the work we create are inseparable from the company we keep. We look forward to 2017 with excitement, and wish to count our current partners among those highlights again, alongside some new faces…
Happy holidays, and happy new year!
** This is a re-post of a past article from 2013 that is highly relevant today. Some lessons need constant reminders to take hold.
Lots of chatter about Big Data out there these days. Huge possibilities lie ahead for those who can use it smartly, but there’s a flip side for those who jump aboard without a good understanding of what it really represents. Some of the cautionary discourse centers around privacy fears, potential for misinterpretation, or even stunted creativity in favor of easy commercial successes.
Big Data may not lie, but it doesn’t always tell the whole truth either. Making the leap to assume that chasing raw data on grandiose scales equals understanding is similar to assuming that more complexity in computing operations equals sentience. No matter how complete your quantitative dataset, it still needs scrutiny and interpretation to be meaningful.
An intriguing approach is to maintain the complexity and depth of the original data – but dramatically improve the accessibility. Rather than present your pre-packaged analysis of the inputs, empower your audience to interrogate the inputs directly and construct their own conclusions. Perhaps not the ideal approach for a short presentation by a consultant, but maybe perfect to build an engaged audience? I’m interested to see where this can lead and how those bounds can be blurred…
“The real danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like computers”
– Sydney J. Harris
We would be remiss if we let this July come to a close without noting that it marks our first full year of business as Distill Product Development. It has been a fun and challenging year of deep familiarity infused with fresh changes. With over 20 years of collaboration under our belts, it is amazing how some focused and smart rethinking can change one’s world. Thank you to our partners in life and profession who have helped make this all possible.
One down, and an open road ahead for many more…
Distill-PD is currently searching for an Industrial Design intern to join us for the summer. Candidates should have junior or higher status in an accredited Industrial Design program. Position details available here.
To apply for this position, candidates must provide a cover letter/resume and portfolio sample (under 10MB) that represents a cross section of their strongest work. Deadline for submission is 27apr2016.
Send submission materials to: email@example.com.
“Let’s brainstorm on this – I’ll check schedules and reserve a room…” Do those words fill you with anticipation or dread?
Often characterized by playful exercises and “absolutely no criticism” decrees to force us out of figurative boxes, I can understand why some of the more pragmatic types amongst us may look at it all as a bunch of superfluous goofiness. It doesn’t help that formal studies have witnessed solitary subjects generating more solutions to a complex problem than a brainstorming group in the same amount of time. More always means better, right?
Which leads me to ask – why do we brainstorm?
There are reasons I remain committed to the group brainstorming process, but not all brainstorming is created equal, nor equally appropriate. For one, it can be an investment in building cross-disciplinary empathy – which is healthy for the project well beyond the session itself. That, and the cross-pollination that you get through this process will be sorely missed in other solitary approaches. You may not always see eye to eye, but that’s kind of the point.
Quantity of ideas is part of the mechanics of the session, but it is not the prize outcome in my experience. A structured session can look like a way to get a lot of great ideas – but I believe it is much more valuable and valid as an intense “immersion bootcamp” to get an extended project team heading in the same general direction with compatible goals. Coming out of a complex discovery research phase there are a lot of factors and motivations to balance, and some may still be forming. A well-directed group session is often the best way to internalize the research findings for the team so they can proceed into collaborative concept development most effectively.
It is not a silver bullet. There are times that concentrated effort from an individual toward a complex mechanical or geometric problem is unbeatable. More often than not though, I find that rubbing two or more heads together over a problem produces something more meaningful than just static-charged hair.
Years ago I tried to be an island. I valued my design input by how much I could do alone – in quantity, quality, and breadth. But I was so much older then – I’m younger than that now…
image credit: 惟①刻¾
quote: Bob Dylan “My Back Pages”
This video made the rounds on the internet a while ago. I later realized that it inadvertently illustrated a pitfall many young designers fall victim to – in this instance exploited in reverse as a wonderful surprise.
Many of the tools we use in product design are 2D in nature, with many that purport to be 3D suffering from this “portal view” effect. CAD tools are a wonderful thing which I’ve taken advantage of throughout my career, but I didn’t learn form through CAD – I learned to understand form by sculpting clay and carving wood first. Both the blank page and the on-screen Cartesian plane are 2D interfaces for design: flat windows to a simulated 3D world. It is a worthwhile trade-off for the ability to explore multiple concepts in quick succession, but it can also lead some to shortchange the process at early stages believing they have thought things through adequately.
I worked alongside a designer for many years who, knowingly or not, mentored me in this approach. He kept his early sketches very rough and often started from the inside out – sketching at full scale on cardboard and foam as he experienced the volumes directly. As soon as he had a hint of a layout in mind, he would jump to mocking it up in low fidelity materials. When it came time to review concepts, whether we reviewed models or limited it to 2D renderings, it became apparent that his designs lived in the real world – designed to interact with the user’s actions and body noticeably better than the rest and not relying on tenuous “view-constrained” relationships in place of form. In mock-up format his concepts would visually hold together as you walked around them, always displaying a visual logic.
“Flat view” tools such as sketching and CAD are essential parts of the mix when designing product form, but don’t fall into the trap of thinking that you can repeatedly short-cut the process without missing out on a significant part of your design’s visual story.
Architect Eliel Saarinen once stated: “Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context – a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan.” This is wonderful advice for designers, and an important principle to keep in mind for those working with designers. Countless times I have been pulled to a co-worker’s workstation to sign off on a detail tweak we’ve discussed, only to find the detail in question filling the entire screen. Nice blended surface, I guess – but how does it visually balance with the scoop surrounding the button that would be about 12″ to the right of your screen at this scale?
This is why designers often don’t give the quick “yes/no” answers others expect of them. They need to take a step back, squint, and get a sense of a detail from multiple angles and within the larger context. Over time, I’ve found that this principle doesn’t just apply to the proportional relationships on a product.
In our design research we aim to uncover latent needs of the user, and build a deeper framework of empathy for their decisions and motivations. Context bears heavily on those aspects, and much of our research employs in-field ethnography to observe and interact with users directly within those environments and scenarios. As tangible as it is, the physical context can be easy to overlook. Lighting, noise, and access can all be significant in influencing the appropriateness of a design.
But context can also shift due to other factors, including urgency, infrastructure, distraction, and so on. It is important to comprehend how the full environment of your product morphs and shifts throughout its interaction with the user. The context of a medical device may very well be defined by the infrastructure of selecting, delivering, and paying for that physical item you are designing as much as the ergonomics of the handle or the sterility of the work surface. They may not be as direct as a sharp edge against the side of your finger, but many times they can still be an influence (and be influenced).
Never forget to take a step back and assess the context – it is usually where the most meaningful insights you will discover lie.