At an industrial design program, students are taught the fundamentals of design. They're also encouraged to branch out with the experimental form factors they'd never get away with at a real-life design firm where there's big money on the line. So student concept work, by necessity, gets cut a little slack in the reality department, as you want to leave their creativity unfettered. But the question I have for you all is, where do you draw the line? Isn't there a base level of research and understanding of the problem being solved that is an absolute requirement?
Knowing I'm obsessed with sewing machines, someone sent me a link to this folding sewing machine concept from the New Designers graduate show in London. I almost wish they hadn't, because I worry that concept work like this can give industrial design a bad name, particularly when it gets the amount of press it's been receiving. To me, this particular design demonstrates a lack of understanding of the problem being solved; but some of you might argue that's a virtue. Read on.
The initial idea is laudable: To design an unintimidating sewing machine that folds flat for storage and is easy-to-use, therefore encouraging more people to mend their own things. That's all fine and good. The problem I have with it is that the designer seems to not have done any research to understand how people actually use sewing machines, and how they physically work.
First off, the concept has just two buttons for stitch selection: A straight-stitch and a zigzag. But there is no interface to adjust the stitch length and zigzag width, two very crucial details in sewing. This is sort of like having a table saw that only cuts at one height, or a car that can only turn to round a 50-foot radius corner, nothing larger or smaller. Secondly, there is no handwheel. The handwheel you see on the right of every sewing machine is what the sewist uses to do precision work, and either a handwheel or a needle up/down button is an absolutely necessity for starting or stopping the sewing process. Absent this, there would be no way to remove the material if, say, you let off the pedal and the needle wound up in the "down" position, piercing the fabric.
Thirdly, there is no visible means to raise and lower the presser foot. Again, actual sewing would be impossible without this feature.
Fourthly, the actual thread is not exposed; there's no spool pin at the top where it would go to feed into the machine. I've seen modern machines that hold the thread inside the arm of the machine in a sort of cartridge, but these are made transparent so the sewist can tell when the thread is going to run out—a crucial detail if you're in the middle of a lengthy stitch that will be exposed to view on the finished garment.
There's also no mechanism to wind a bobbin. Every lock-stitch sewing machine has a built-in capacity to get thread from the spool wound onto the bobbin, as you cannot sew with just a spool.
Beyond that is the thing we're presumably supposed to let slide: There is no allowance in the body for a motor. That seems to be something often omitted in student concept work, explained away by saying "Well, in the future electric motors will become tiny, so you could fit a 1-amp motor in the such-and-such part."
I can ignore that last bit, but not the previous five points. So, back to the question: If a student designer is developing a concept, oughtn't they demonstrate a thorough understanding of the object being re-designed, and how humans actually interact with those objects? If you're designing a hammer, shouldn't you drive a few nails first, pick up a magazine about carpentry, or talk to a contractor?
Or do you think the sort of "magic box that can do anything" nature of this particular concept is necessary in the design world, and that some ignorance of the actual process is a good way to achieve a breakthrough? Someone might argue that designers familiar with all of the existing form factors might be bound to design things too similar to what exists, as they are unable to get outside of the established design box.
I don't hold that last opinion, but I'm just one guy. I'd like to hear what you think, and I hope we can get a decent mix of both students and working professionals sounding off.
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
I have to believe that the instructor might have been just as guilty of not knowing what the requirements are to complete the task of sewing, even at its most essential.
Most people think that a 3D render is always preferable to a 2D illustration, but sometimes it can be counter productive. Kinda like printing a picture off your phone on A2 paper!
Is it about the software or the concept?
I've found the technical knowledge of some BA/MA educated industrial designers shocking. However, I agree that a lot of industrial design projects can be (and are allowed to be) naive, as surely 6 months to a years work by a 20-21 year old can be nothing but a bit naive? They are all trying to be Phillipe Stark before their time.
What is missing is process (sketches, user testing, prototypes) to build up a design story. Industrial designers are too focussed on the end goal; a CAD render or model to sell to the client. To be honest, joe public and people in suits have no understanding, nor interest, in the design process-they want to see the end product that they want to sell or buy-and are sold to the vision.
Who can blame young impressionable industrial designers? All they see is the beautiful CAD renders and models on websites, magazines and exhibitions. They think 'that is what design is all about'. In the same way that a young girl will look through a fashion magazine and think the airbrushed, photoshopped and contrived models are what fashion and beauty are. It's false.
You rarely see the coffee-stained biro sketches, the rough blue-foam models, the design iterations, the prototypes that didn't work. That is the true beauty of design.
There needs to be wariness of advanced renders and crisp models, as it sells a false reality to non-design observers. Many do not understand that the A-surface CAD render and the shiny model on a plinth are empty; hollow.
Equally, product designers need to understand packaging of components and how things work (that'll be the MEng in me). They need to understand the trends of motor and battery technology and can forecast what it could be like in the next 2-5 years; by looking at past and existing products and components, as well as emerging technologies.
If you can't find a motor that fits then design your own (Dyson Digital Motor anyone?).
Perhaps industrial design needs a shake-up? Link it in more with engineering and business courses; or just stop pressing the 'render' button?
The full render gives the illusion of completeness - we would not be having this debate if it was just a sketch.
The kid has taken a 30 second idea and spent 30 hours communicating it. A waste of time (mine and his) but not a crime.
Fundamentally a flat pack sewing machine isn't a bad idea but clearly it is lacking seriously in development.
Ultimately, it is render porn and it doesn't do much to enhance my opinion of industrial design.
In this case I believe this Concept is being given the criticism of a final product and should be treated as a concept that it is. With a concept there is room for improvement since it is still on the concept state.
I believe students should definitely perform more research before going in the conceptualization phase but at the same time, receive criticism according to their experience and level of expertise.
If this sewing machine was ready for market then the criticism serves it well that there was no rigorous research done but this is just a concept there is still room for improvement.
I hope I missed someone mentioning that maybe this is getting so much press because there are a good amount of people who would appreciate such a simple, under-functioning machine.
Maybe there is a user group, that needs a mending machine, instead of a sewing machine. Maybe then need to fix top stitching and hems every few months, and then need to not have a sewing machine the rest of the time.
Maybe the project is a joke, and the media is such that they report on the silliest of things without really understanding what they are talking about.
Was the machine seen on Fox News?
http://develop3d.com/blog/2012/07/new-designers-2012-top-five-no.1-richard-burrow-plymouth
Personally, as an industrial design student who is a year away from "The Real World" it concerns me a great deal that the great majority of portfolios I see have some example of "CADworld" renders and models that have very little relationship to reality. Communicating to what degree a given artifact is intended to be a concept or a finished design is a tough problem, and often one we face in school in presenting our work to outside parties coming from entirely different backgrounds. I guess I can really only give an answer from my own experience, which is "treat it as a design problem"...
Hate to give a non-answer answer, but maybe that's because I recognize I may be out of my depth. Part of learning!
Something else I'd like to learn--how to keep this site from formatting my comment as a run-on sentence? HTML doesn't do anything that I can see...
You are quite right of course - the ubiquitous acrylic slab with a PCB embedded somewhere - as indeed was my major project - dt98cai.
I do think that universities are NOT helping graduates get jobs when it comes to portfolios amongst other things however... but it does mean that good work stands out... ;)
"I am guessing he wasn't a Brunel graduate"
... He's not, but my comments above regarding understanding the user experience and demonstrating how that insight has informed your design decisions apply equally to many of the Brunel portfolios I see. I studied there myself, so have some affection for the place and appreciate their technical rigor, but their curriculum and approach is not beyond improvement: PCB in a square acrylic box anyone? ;)
I don't think it's the case with this particular sewing machine design; from an engineering stand point, it might be difficult to solve some of the problems mentions, but if the project was about "how can a seeing machine be more portable", it's an interesting student concept.
It's unfortunate that this subject originated from a major contributor of Core77 who is extremely bias, this post would be be different if the same sewing machine concept was designed by a studying of another country, say, South Korea. The same person thought a pencil with build-in LED that displays measurements while drawing freehand was "neat", and a transparent glass cellphone with water-bubbles for buttons was "bad-ass".
At least we wouldn't be having this discussion just because someone suddenly and conveniently lost the ability to imagine show a hand-wheel can be placed.
I am guessing he wasn't a Brunel graduate.
Pretty lipstick...
It was a lighting project, to design a light based around a quote we were given. The specifics of my concepts are too important, but I am still questioning the process I followed months later.
My concept was a wooden, character-like, desktop light that one would have on when they were working late, the last one in the office/studio, and have it keep them company. I wanted the actual lighting to be a slow fade in fade out breathing effect from an internal LED. I also wanted the fade in and out rates of the light to be adjustable so the user could finely adjust it to fit their mood.
My initial ideation was much more fruitful than some of my other projects, and I settled upon a concept that I really felt good about more quickly that usual, giving me more time to focus on the form and the tech that went with it. I was so excited about my concept and I wanted it to be a stellar portfolio piece and even to use it in my studio as it was intended!
That said i new basically nothing about electronics. But I was determined to make it a working prototype, so I bought my breadboard, resistors, a new soldering iron, the works. Doing research, getting the circuit that I needed to get the desired lighting affect was difficult and my failures to make the circuit successfully were met with inadequate knowledge of how to troubleshoot them.
One of my teachers, who I respect greatly, told me with confidence that I should fake the lighting affect; hook up a dimmer switch to the light and create the desired affect manually for the final show, a product video etc. His argument was not that I should be content to let the engineers handle that stuff for my whole career, but that with all the time I was spending teaching myself basic electronics I was losing time refining the meaning of my concept, the form, interaction elements etc.
Of course faking it was completely counter to the goals of having a working prototype that I could use and show to people readily and let it speak for itself. Stubborn me, I continued playing around with my potentiometers and 9v battery blindly chasing my desired lighting affect.
Keep in mind, this was about a 4-5 week project.
Eventually I did get the circuit down with its adjustable elements and all.
To speed the story up, by the morning of the final show I did in fact get my wooden form crafted, with the circuitry and lighting inside it, more-less working.
That said it was simply not enough time to hammer out all the details, ensure the integrity of all the moving and operating components etc etc. The light began failing one piece at a time following its short but glorious life at the final show.
Looking back, I am glad I learned something about electronics, I likely wouldn't have otherwise. And I feel good to say that as a designer I did not take the attitude of 'leave it to the engineers.'
But that said, I might have learned more and gone deeper with the subjective elements of the design if I had said to myself, this project is about light, how people interact with a light I design, and what kind of meaning I can attribute to an object through light, not about learning what a diod does.
I don't know if what I did was best or not.
Reading this article I agree that the designer, regardless of a student or professional, needs to understand the fundamentals of the archetype behind their concept. But speaking from my own experience I think the undertaking of thoroughly tackling the technical elements of a design, although an invaluable ability in the working world as I'm finding at my current internship, may not always be the best use of the very limited time one has as a student. I think it is critical for students to take their own time to investigate the mechanics behind how things in our manufactured world work. But while in design school I think the main priority should be developing a students ability to develop, evaluate, and refine the subjective elements of making things that designers are the sole advocates of - user interaction, the meaning of a product, why it should be made at all etc etc. You could spend an infinite amount of time on these subjects, and maybe students should while they still have the chance to be so focused.
unless of course the PR piece was just a conceptual article... but not so lucky I think.
That's not nescessarily bad, if someone posted a rifle concept that had a lot of flaws in the design (like any design for any game/movie ever would if it was being seriously proposed) I'd probably pick it apart as I know a lot about how guns function and I could ask all the same questions (where's the charging handle? why is the magazine in that ridiculous position? why are things attached to the barrel like that?)
But as someone who was until this spring a student, yeah, I often had trouble with finding my line between figuring out function and letting it just be a representation.
Often I have the issue, if you could call it that, that once I took a concept beyond being a small sketch into the 3D world, I became obsessed with ensuring that my 3D representation was right. I'd scour McMaster for 3D models of hardware, find the dimensions of motors, spend hours studying how the gearing of, say, a fishing reel works. I'd take apart objects, reverse engineer them, and keep pushing to update the details. Essentially trying to be industrial designer, mechanical designer, and manufacturing engineer all at once.
It was tough to find myself so mired down in doing it the 'right way' while around me I saw people with beautiful CAD renderings of shapes that... looked cool but may or may not function. Meanwhile I struggled to make things fit, solve problems like what gearing to use, and ultimately had less-than-steller presentation as a result.
Do I feel really good now that I know how to take a concept and develop a nice product that merges a compelling and intuitive form with an understanding of making it all work inside, and I can take that concept and generate models which I can use to print functional prototypes and hand directly to tooling designers? I feel pretty good. Do I feel that perhaps I missed the chance to explore a little more wildly because I was so concerned with physical and practical constraints? Yeah, a bit, actually.
I like the sewing machine concept as a concept; I see it as 'check out this cool idea' sketch in a 3D form. Something you could take to the next level.
I was reading the article above and it made me think "why not throw another 'magic box' on the thing and have all controls governed by a smart phone?" not knowing much about how the knobs mechanically link to affect the way stitches come out, but I could see a couple servos/switches/CNC style widgets inside that would turn digital input into physical stitches. It might be a horrible idea, but that's OK, it's just a knee-jerk solution to a few flaws in a product concept that if they make sense could be thrown into the next iteration in some way. Or not.
If people like this idea, it will eventually go to the next phase, and hopefully that's where a deep-dive into research and testing would occur, where the designer or someone else would figure out exactly what they needed to design towards, figure out issues of function and space, and determine materials and construction methods, and get to the working prototype stage.
At that point we could critique it as to whether it had considered all the functional details that a basic sewing machine would require. If many of them were considered before the development of the prototype, great, only a few additions for the next one.
I don't think that the designer thought about what people actually do. I think what happened is that they saw a sewing machine and they probably did not like the way it worked for "them." They thought oh this should be flat pack so "I" can store it and oh "I" wish there were not as many settings. I think that this is just a naive design, which is what most of us do in the beginning, we design for ourselves.
This is coming from someone who just recently graduated.
I do think this project highlights a lack of rigour from the student, his tutors etc. I see a lot of projects that appear to have a 'that will do' attitude. I don't think students are pushed enough to work everything through and instead are too often allowed to hide behind the get out of dodge excuse - 'well it's a blue sky concept'. It worked for me in University, but in the long run didn't do me any favours.
I think there will always be opinion on what is suitable/acceptable for a Student/graduate to produce based on University/exam board judging criteria, which can be a bit 'Tick box' oriented, verses what employers would like to see. Ultimately the test will be wether he is able to get employment based on his portfolio, not just on the merits of this project.
There is a trend for design students to produce endless slick CAD renderings without making a physical model to see how the design would feel/operate etc I don't think this is necessarily their fault, but ours for not correcting the mistake and for society to celebrate without question the pretty pictures they produce (via various blogs etc). In this instance the student did produce a model, without (it appears) answering the usability questions basic investigative research would have provided, this is much more worrying than how big a motor can be made and where the power comes from etc. The question is why?
I love this concept.
The engineering specifics and usability concerns could all be worked out in a form that looks much like this. Maybe a little bigger, maybe more controls, maybe more windows. This concept isn't inventing a new way to sew, it's inventing a new form.
What you should be asking yourself is not "where is the window for the thread?!" but rather "does a folding sewing machine make sense? Is it useful enough for us to further develop it? Are there users that want this?" If the answer is no, then it doesn't matter if it's feasible or not. If the answer is yes, then you go out and you figure out all those details.
Is there a line for suspension of disbelief? Yes, but this is far from it. Heck, look at this thing:
http://www.amazon.com/Lil-Sew-ZDML-2-Lightweight-Handheld/dp/B0046U88ZY/
You could easily fit those guts into this concept, and have room to improve them.
What this goes to show is what I call the "uncanny valley of design." This mock-up is slightly too real for people to use their imagination on the missing details, but not real enough where the details are fully thought out.
If anything, it's a good lesson for the student. Next time, he should make his model a little less, or a little more refined, depending on his goals. Sometimes, doing less work is better. People won't start asking you where you plan on putting all the parting lines and which way all the plastic parts are being drafted if you're only showing them sketches and unpainted foam models. Then again, you won't get on core77 with an unpainted foam model, so, meh, seems like it worked out to me.
I'm just surprised that THIS is the one concept you call out as being unrealistic. I've seen much less realistic concepts praised on this site.
http://www.industrialdesign.lth.se/gallery/ba_projects/2010/mattias_nilsson/
Easier to learn this mistake at college than in the real world so lets hope something good comes from the exposure of this particular idea.
For me, this article highlights the growing fracture between design as a management consulting, engineering and a marketing skill. The student did an excellent job at identifying and communicating the product's core feature. This is a high value skill.
If, as an inexperienced designer, he had gotten caught up in the functionality and expert user interviews, would the primary thrust of the project have been lost? Likely.
I in no way disagree about the responsibilities of good design...but quality control is a manager's job, not a student's. It would be completely irresponsible to ask an entry level designer to orchestrate the relationship between the marketing, political, ergonomic, mechanical and financial aspects of a project.
I have reviewed millions of dollars work of less thought out/useful/insightful concept work from major consultancies.
It's completely unfair to crap, in such a public way, on a student who is doing such provocative work. There are plenty of unusable/manufacturable concepts coming out of top 10 consultancies to pick on.
Honestly, this concept, like many others I've seen on a certain website, just shows sloppy thinking on the part of the future designer in question. If you can start to pick it apart in a minute, there is something fundamentally wrong with the overall concept & must be rethought. There is absolutely nothing making a mistake & learning from that mistake - that is the essence of the design process. But life isn't going to slow down and often times the difference between two equally beautiful concepts is one student spending 5 extra minutes of their time learning something for their concept than just diving in & hoping for the best.
You might be able to figure out how to fold a "machine" that's made of foam blocks, but that exercise is limited in value if you don't explore the true spacial and functional aspects of the product.
This all assumes he's near the end of his education and working on full studio projects. If its for a modelshop or other a skill focused class, nevermind.
But above all that I think this is a lazy 2D form. No merit.
But you guys are all missing the point... it looks like an NES.
That said, I strongly believe that students targeting careers in industrial/product/interaction design (consultancy or in-house) need to demonstrate an understanding of the user experience and technical constraints relating to their project. It's a crucial part of framing the problem which the designer is attempting to solve.
A third aspect to consider is the commercial context of the project (e.g. how it fits within the broader business strategy of a "client" organisation/brand). That's hugely important for professional designers, but I wouldn't necessarily expect a student project to delve too deeply into it.
Crucially, this process of understanding the user experience and technical constraints should directly inspire the creative process. Having thoroughly immersed yourself in the user experience, consider the various attributes you're identified as being important one at a time (e.g. "Clear indication before the thread runs out") and scribble down as many design solutions as you can to that particular attribute. That's the time when you can put the technical constraints to the back of your mind for a while - just focus on solutions to deliver the best user experience given your insight into the problem.
Having done that, you can then consider technical feasibility. Where do your different ideas rank on a scale of "easy to implement" vs. "currently impossible"? Think about the relative cost implications of the different solutions as well. Maybe there's a more cost effective way to solve a particular problem? Are there any great ideas which seem impossible/expensive, but could be made to work with a little more thought? This is how you'll start to filter and refine your ideas and, eventually, bring them together in one or more complete design concepts.
The end result should be a design solution which can be justified in terms of delivering the target user experience whilst meeting technical constraints (and, if you really want to shine, fitting within a business strategy).
Making this clear link between insight and design solution is the single most common piece of advise I give to students. The acid test is that you should be able to point at every feature of your design and say "This is designed in such-and-such a way in order to deliver this experiential attribute, which I determined to be important by immersing myself in the user experience".
[Cue observation/roleplay snippet that supports your point].
Extra brownie points for going on to say something like "I've also considered how the product would work, the manufacturing process and the target price-point, and that's why I implemented the design solution in this particular way".
The number of student projects which don't appear to follow this methodology is disheartening, and leads me to suspect that the problem lies in design education itself. I wonder if the marking schemes for degree projects are to blame? Perhaps there's too much box ticking ("research survey - TICK, concept sketches - TICK") without sufficient emphasis on the importance of joining the dots between parts of the design process.
The projects which impress me most as a recruiter are those which demonstrate a connected journey from experiential & technical insight gathering, via identification of target design attributes, focused problem solving and validation/refinement, leading to a carefully considered design proposal.
This is the best way for a prospective employee to demonstrate the skills that employers (at least in my sector) are looking for: an ability to frame the problem, define a brief, understand constraints, identify user-experience goals, solve problems with creative thinking, validate and refine their ideas according to the targets and constraints they've identified, and argue a strong case for their eventual design decisions.
What's most frustrating is that, as well as delivering better end results, the above methodology should actually make the design process easier and more transparent. Thus we're really doing students a disservice if we're not teaching it correctly. Any professional designer will tell you that staring at a blank sheet of paper and trying to conjure good, relevant solutions out of thin air is next to impossible. Targets and constraints are the necessary fuel for creative problem solving.
Your mileage may vary ;)
Students (and teachers?) out there might be interested to read a previous blog that I wrote with some tips for effective portfolio projects: http://www.thealloy.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/design-students-you-dont-have-to-change.html
I have had intense, collaborative, and research heavy projects in the past that never got any hooplah on the web but have done well at the critique because of process. In terms of online presence, the only work people have responded to are my aestheticly pleasing pieces of work that often sparked a debate at my critique.
Either way, it's an interesting perspective and I think it's more important to have students explore the way this person did. He has a nice, finished, portfolio piece - while it may have flaws, ultimately if they spent more time researching and developing they probably would not of had enough time in a student timeframe to actually accomplish a completed, molded, semi-mechanical model!
We all talk of trade offs, and I think this is one of them.
My studies were rigorously aligned with real world outcomes and only briefs with the preface "Blue Sky Design" would ignore the bothersome practicalities of reality. It was a methodology that trained us for the realities of the pragmatic world of industrial design but it did sometimes deny the opportunity for the far fetched hero work that makes it into the blogosphere.
I think the main problem we have is that young designers may have only seen design through the products of Dyson and Apple and perhaps something that should be taught in design schools is that "I" design is not the best solution for everything.
The flip side of all this is that if he would have been bogged down with all the requirements and restrictions you listed, would he had pursued this concept at all? Or if he hadn't given up, would the idea have been communicated as clearly?
I don't think this was supposed to be a demonstration of a product, but rather of an idea.
Now that the idea is here, let's see which doors it will open... for one, it made you do this post, right?
http://www.uwid.uni-wuppertal.de/examensarbeiten/susanne-eichel.html
It is the bachelor thesis of Susanne Eichel, done at the industrial design department of the universitiy of Wuppertal, Germany.
I do agree that the design needs some refinement. However, you're view on state of design is based on the assumption that a designer has finished learning once he graduates school...which is very far from the truth.
However,
I think it depends on the level of education (i.e. what year they are in and whether it is a bachelors or masters) and the amount of time spent on the project. If you have a week to design a sewing machine which in reality takes perhaps a year or two to develop there are undoubtedly phases of the design process you will have to skip. The research phase unfortunately tends to be the first thing to be axed in such a short project as students are quick to sketch, 3d model and show shiny renders.
The type of ID course is also significant. i.e. if you study at a polytechnic (technical) university where you obtain a BSc, you will undoubtedly be expected to take a more scientific (and thus mechanically minded) approach than if you are studying at a Design academy where you will get a BA. If you are studying an MSc you definitely can't get away with the 'magic box syndrome' you alluded to. I really can't see someone getting away with such omissions in an Industrial Design Engineering course.
I think the example you have shown highlights a problem to do with the 'resolution' of a prototype, sketch or 3D render. The higher resolution and more 'realistic' a render or prototype looks, the more people think it is a final product and expect it to work. Thus people look at the prototype in a different fashion and have different expectations from the prototype than if it was a blue-foam mock-up. As the surface tends to be the element we interact with most, when that looks complete we expect the interior functional aspects to also be complete... This is why you see blogs go crazy over beautifully realistic looking yet impossible automotive renders that are nothing more than the equivalent of a concept sketch in terms of design quality.
However before I can comment on this sewing machine , could you please clarify if you have posed these questions to the designer? It is possible that he has thought of these point and has a solution for them.
I think that there is a real positive to be had about a kind of dream designing but it's more suited for trying to push functions beyond what is contemporary experience. To try and break habits or to construct new interactions.