#rr08

[anthonorris-blog]

Design AVSI - Ch. 9:10

Heskett talks about a number of things in his final chapters of Design- A Very Short Introduction. Specifically what stuck with me was his discussion on the future of design. He writes, "... a major question requiring an answer is whether designers will be merely technocrats, devoting their skills to the highest commercial bidder without consideration of the ends they serve. Or is there instead a dimension of social and environmental purpose requiring acknowledgment of their work?"

I think that this is a very important question and something every designer should ask themselves. I may be taking his quote out of context a bit but for me this part and many other parts of the book triggered a thought in my head. What should be a designers goals? What are my goals? Do I want to go for the money... work the the big name company and just shell out designs to them hoping it will sell? Or do I want my work to have real meaning? To work directly with the users and see how my design has specifically effected, for better or worse, society and the environment. I don't think that there can be a clear line drawn between the two concepts. Nor do I necessarily think that working for a corporate company damns your ideas to being unhelpful to society and nature. What I do think is that "design" has come a long way in recent years and that as technology and sciences continue to evolve so will this practice. I'm encouraged by our great and ever growing ability to reach and address issues around the world. Whether I will work on my own to contribute or use the resources of a major company is something I cannot answer. 

[littledesign-blog]

9, and the Last.

According to the book, design is controlled/limited/organized/shaped by many factors. There are numerous organizations all around the world set up standards for the designers. Government plays as a lead decision maker for design practice. Different companies have different company cultures and different concepts/goals, even some of them produce similar end-products the designers have to consider what to emphasize or depreciate. Since designers usually do not work along, should they just agree to do whatever their clients want to, consider nothing but profit, or the other way around.

The author points out that even thought the "standards" are usually set by big corporations, small individual owners can still overpower those standards if they can produce better design.

[keepcalmandcontrive-blog]

Design: A Short Intro Reflection #4

Last week we returned to Design: A Short Intro to wrap up the final chapters 9 and 10.

First, I have to say that taking that break from the book has definitely estranged me from any lingering interest I once had in the book, which was lacking to begin with.

I'm happy that we've finally put this book to a close for good.

I'll be honest, neither of the final chapters peaked my interest much and I'm not sure what to attribute that to.

Either way, I found chapter 9: Contexts relatively interesting.  I found the coverage on how design is focused in individual companies pretty noteworthy.  The difference of some business that choose to keep their design specific and recognizable as opposed to others that allow the design to be branched out seemed like something interesting to acknowledge.

I also enjoyed the analyzation of a company's design compared to others and how distinguishability comes into play.

[smith7726-blog]

Chapters 9-10

The chapters I found relatively boring but very important. Ultamately the government rule is going to determing whether or not your product makes it out into the real world market. Whether or not your products going to bring up legal problem is all in question here. The second thing brought to attention in these chapters was that the world of design is evolving everyday. Making a product that other will be able to evolve off of may be more successful than a product left at a dead end.

[dsgn200tk-blog]

Heskett 9 & 10

In chapter 9 the talks about OXO and Dyson were interesting, touching on companies we see as giants today, or at least rapidly growing companies, that started out small.  With enough drive these companies have been able to take common tasks in everyday life and try to make them easier for the consumer.  The brief history discussions and talks about design in different countries was a bit of a bore.  Not that it wasn't good information, but just seemed a bit out of place.  I enjoyed reading about the money drive in the design world.  Even though trying to make a nice product with little costs is a common practice, reading about designing for poor countries made me think.  For example a perfectly good design here in the USA could be obsolete in a poor country, and is a very important factor to consider when your audience is in a different income bracket than you.

[marypo-blog]

RR08

One of the concepts I really enjoyed in this weeks reading was how design needs to be more like an evolution when it comes to adapting over time, rather than a takeover of old ideas by the new. Older concepts need to be incorporated into the new ones, just because something is newer doesn't mean that it's better. And by using older ideas, we can learn from them. We can use these ideas, and improve of them- modernize them and apply them to the atmosphere of the present- rather then dismissing them for having outdated qualities.

[get-big-get-big-blog]

RR08

In chapters 9 and 10 Heskett emphasizes how your product can be effected as how it is and needs to be perceived.  Our perception of a product may in fact control the way our design process is effected.  It can effect the features, the packaging and the general campaign for its sales related propaganda.  Its context and realization of that context is one of the most important parts of design and its success.

PACMAN