Contemporary Design Issues - Term Paper Example

Name : xxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxx Title : Contemporary Design Issues Institution : xxxxxxx @2010 Contemporary Design Issues Introduction The practice of design in the contemporary society of the 21st century is as intriguing as it is demanding given the many factors that have to be adhered to be in tune with market trends and environmental implications. They are these factors that have to be adhered to without neglect that has flipped all designers and design practices in overdrive for ideas, innovations and strategies to help them realize their respective goals while at the same time heeding to contemporary issues and still realize profitability. Extant concerns of novelty, originality and fashion that characterized the design industry are no longer tenable in this new dispensation that has broadened to incorporate more factors (Roberts 2006). In this dispensation, strategies in design that are merely appealing in the novelty and outstanding in their fashionability while being oblivious of other modern concerns such as environmental, economical, political and social implementations that come with the designs are self-destructive destined for untimely demise and absolute failure (Roberts 2006). It is therefore incumbent upon designers and media practitioners to incorporate and establish how economic, technological, political and social changes affect their work and respond accordingly. It is that imperative need that this paper seeks to address through analysis of one design issue. Contemporary Design Issue The design issue taken for this paper is the one that relates the use of User-Centred Design with complete (or almost complete) disregard of environmental issues in the coming up of designs as a way of meeting consumer needs. It is almost universally accepted that User-Centred Design is the most appropriate way to ensure that design responds to consumer needs translating in increased volumes of sales and successful communication of the products in the market. There are however authorities like Eric Schweikardt who refute this postulate and instead insist on the imperative need for designers to prioritize focusing on environmental concerns over a focus on the user needs (Schweikardt 2009). It is pretty obvious that one principle that is held almost with sacred awe in the field of user-interface design is the one that dictates that a designer ought to know the user who will use the invention they set out to design. This overt reverence and reliance on this principle is easy to understand since indeed one cannot design something for people without a clear understanding of who these people are and what their peculiar needs are. It is called Human-Centred Design (HCD) which is at times simplified to User-Centred Design (UCD. Again, by accentuating the abilities and needs of users who are to use say software designs, there has been appreciable improvement in the understandability and usability of the designed products (Frascara 1997). This notwithstanding, what is increasingly becoming observable even with these hype Human-Centred Design innovations is that software complexities are just still as prevalent as before; in fact, even companies that pride in strict adherence to these User-Centred Design principles are just plagued with as many confusing and complex products as any other company (Norman 2005). This revelation then insinuates that User-Centred Designs may not after all realize complete user understandability of the product design and the consumer satisfaction it sets out to achieve. The corollary of this surmise is that then there needs to be a better motivation that designers and media practitioners need to pursuer in their designing that is likely to realize higher moral obligation and societal satisfaction with a fair guarantee that that pursuit will be successful. User satisfaction is largely illusionary given that personal preferences and tastes are just as varied and as many as there are ideas. In fact, Don Norman offers very interesting insights in his refute of Human-Centred Design by his article Human-Centred Design Considered Harmful. In this article, Norman suggests Activity-Centred Design (ACD) as a better approach to design since human expectations and needs are just too relative and personal to give any hope of universal acceptance. When Norman picks on the topic, he is as aggressive in his delineating of the central concepts of the principle as he is radical in his dismissal of the principles and pontification of Activity-Centred Design as the only logical and promising principle for design practitioners. His central rebuttal of UCD is that user needs are at times so varied and specific to be the main basis upon which designs can be predicated and still expect universal acceptance. He furthers his claim by asking the question that, “if it is imperative to understand the particular users of a product, then how does one design a product to be used by almost everyone in the world?” (Norman 2005, p. 1) Indeed there are many items that have been designed without user studies let alone applying any of the UCD principles and still work with success that boarders on flawlessness. Take vehicles for instance. Anyone can learn to drive a vehicle successfully using almost the similar control configurations. The point here is that users adapt to technology and not vise-versa and therefore HCD is just as inappropriate as it is untrue! (Norman 2005) Having gauged a huge dent in the central concept of UCD in casting doubts at the possibility of ever attaining user-satisfaction as is intended by UCD, it follows that implorations toward shifting focus during designing to other elements that are likely to be representative and logically meaningful are more plausible and compelling. Of these, Schweikardt’s argument that favours prioritizing environmental concerns over focusing on user needs is very compelling. Focusing predominantly on user needs and preferences does not realize corporate social responsibility obligations and even more often than not fails on moral authentication. Consider designs in the automotive or heavy machinery industry for instance. User needs (especially commercial users) in the industry are such things as efficiency, minimized costs and appropriateness of the designs in question for the work they are designed to do. Commercial users of automotives for instance will want machines that have high horse power while minimizing their gasoline consumption costs. Designs that are likely to meet this need are ones that invent vehicles and industrial machines that use say diesel and/or coal. Their horse-power is high and consumption costs are low (given the low cost of diesel and coal). What these designs overlook is the deleterious effects these machines cause to the environment in the role they play in increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The price is just too dear to take the proverbial posture of the ostrich’s head buried in sand and just remain oblivious of the reality of the need to protect the environment from destruction. It will be naïve to postulate that consumer needs are irrelevant and therefore should be completely disregarded by designers and media practitioners. Since designs are meant to be traded as goods to realize profitability for businesses, there is need to invest in designs and design projects that at least address some specific needs for users. Look at designs and inventions in cosmological robotics for instance. These robots are designed to respond to challenges and factors that are not important to most people. A good example would be to consider robots that manage NASA Space stations, maneuver satellites in space and carry astronauts into space. These designs and innovation are specifically created to attend to some specific activities and conditions within the field of cosmology. Most of these concerns have very little to do with human experience let a lone things that many people will be interested in. Taking designs from this field and wanting to trade them to people will most definitely realize no profitability since user interests and needs are not considered for these designs. It is only to the professionals in the field that such designs could receive some level of appreciation. In spite of the fact that these spatial objects and robotics are designed with elaborate mechanisms to appreciably reduce their effect on the environment, they cannot receive universal acceptance for users who do not find them useful in any possible ways. Spatial ships use nuclear energy to take care of their need of immense power and energy to maneuver in space. This nuclear energy has very little impact on the environment as opposed to if they used fuels such as gasoline. They are designs that are predominantly skewed towards reducing the environmental impact caused by inventions but have very little (if any) inclination towards consumer needs. From these examples it is follows that complete disregard of environmental concerns or user needs does not promise any satisfactory returns for designers and media practitioners. An approach that incorporates the two concerns is therefore one that is most likeable. The automotive industry still gives the best example of a case where accommodative design is used. This decade has seen automotive designs that incorporate technological advancements that are mindful of the environment as well as having user defined conveniences and comfort that is responsive to customer comfort. Not very long ago the use of unleaded super gasoline for automotives was acquiesced in as the best compromise of fuel that least pollutes the environment. The zenith of this technological advancement was in the coming of V-power which is fuel that does not have any traces of the heavy elements which release toxic wastes when they are combusted. These use of less environmentally destructive fuels are used for cars designed to give comfort and convenience that is user specific: cars that have remote controlled air conditioning systems, consisting of hi-fi music and video systems and capacity to accelerate from 0 miles per hour to 80 miles per hour in a record 10 seconds. All these derive their power from the fuel used by the cars. It is a show of some sort of compromise between designs that heed both to user needs while at the same time focusing on protection of the environment. Conclusion Designers and media practitioners indeed are under pressure to continue in innovations that are economically viable and ones that are adherent to societal needs and concerns like environment protection. I find Schweikardt’s argument extremist if it is taken to mean that the way to go in design industry is to completely disregard consumer preferences and needs. Consumers are the most important assets of any business oriented venture and therefore disregarding them is no doubt a serious strategic mistake. What should happen is that, designers have to shift their predominance on consumer needs to address some other factors that are just as important. In this dispensation, environmental degradation is such an imperative global concern which when overlooked could translate in economic repercussions that are just as stringent as they are lethal for any business. A better way of approach in fact is one that broadens the scope of consideration to incorporate corporate social responsibility of designs: how helpful the designs made are going to be of help to the general society ethically, morally and developmentally (Dougherty 2008). Bibliography Norman, Don 2005 Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful, viewed on 22 January 2010. < http://jnd.org/dn.mss/human-centered_design_considered_harmful.html> Brian, Dougherty 2008, Green Graphic Design, Allworth Press and Celery Design Collaborative, New York. Frascara, J 1997 User-Centred Graphic Design: Mass Communication and Social Change, Taylor Francis, London Lucienne, Roberts 2006, Good: Ethics of Graphic Design, AVA Publishing, Lausanne Switzerland. Eric, Schweikardt 2009, “User-Centered is off Center”, Interactions, pp.12-15 Read More