Author: rl3546

The David Rose presentation explores the idea of enchanted objects which takes ordinary, everyday objects and reimagines and enhances them while retaining its familiarity.  He imagines a world where technology uses objects that we already know and make them more than ordinary. He uses an umbrella as an example by putting a blue LED on the bottom to signify whether he will need to use it via data gathered from weather reports. He also imagines a reality where we will be more empathetic and closer to technology instead of seeing technology as something on a screen and removed from it.

There are things that I definitely like about David Rose’s approach and vision. The idea that we should be modifying objects that we already are familiar with the necessary technology they need rather than using apps is an appealing and good idea. We should hone the objects we need for specific functions for those functions rather than making external technology to tell us those functions. It makes our lives more immediate and convenient. However, what I don’t like about his approach is how it can arguably break us away from experiencing things naturally. Our experiences are reduced to what’s convenient and efficient for us. I also think at the rate that technology is improving, the objects we are familiar with will be greater versions of what they are. I also imagine a world where individuals will want to go back to the more natural state of experiencing things instead of a world where technology guides us. 

Fulton’s interview on Thoughtless Acts discusses the idea on how individuals use and design their interaction and experience with the world around them without much conscious thought.  Norman’s article talks about affordances and constraints describing affordances as allowing us possibilities and the differences between real and perceived affordances, and affordances and conventions, which are cultural constraints. He also discusses the differences between real, cultural, and logical constraints.

I found Fulton’s interview very interesting. She talks about how we should be designing empathetically, by observing the way we naturally behave and creating design solutions which compliment these actions instead of asking the user what they would like to interact with the world. She discusses the kinds of questions we should be asking such as “Why are the elements in this space and place organized the way they are? How did this situation come to be like that? And what’s the emotion involved?” By thinking about the way we design our reality, we also are learning more about ourselves and our psychology. I think we will be able to learn a lot from how we automatically organize our reality and the kinds of connections we create with physical things, not just with what we think or imagine. The other article also peaked my interest as it made me reflect how we convey our affordances through design and what we want our design to symbolically communicate to the users. It also made me consider how design also communicates our limitations, but also can aid to guide in utilizing objects toward those affordances. 

Noticing these thoughtless acts really helped me reimagine how we interact with the world or utilize our surroundings in a way that makes navigating through our experiences easier. We design buildings with elevators to make navigating from floor to floor easier and to build our buildings higher, we design doorways to organize the way we go from room to room or exit to exit, and use our computers as stands for our phones. We design our lives in a way that makes it convenient or easier for us. Thoughtless acts can be seen everyday as we design interact with our lives. It makes me curious on why are we compelled to design and interact with our surroundings a certain way and why do we “thoughtlessly” arrange our reality the way we do and what does convenience make us feel? 

For example, some thoughtless acts I witnessed were pretty easy to spot. The first one is putting a capo on the end of a guitar — the end of the guitar is not made for that nor is the capo, but it makes it convenient for us to use when we need it. Another is placing frames on the ledge of a bar which is meant to place plugs in easier reach and hanging a bag on the back of your chair. Both are not meant to be used in the way that they are, but they are both utilized to place objects in a easier manner.  Some ideas to address these situations would be to have a hanger on the back of your seat or a capo on the guitar for its immediate convenience. Another design idea is to create a frame where the frame would have an adhesive which would stick on and off the wall. 

The readings by Liu, Sanders, and Buchanan were an interesting overview about the evolution and character of the design process. Sanders explores the changes of design practice and research through maps, depicting where the kinds of design methods are on the Design Led, Participatory Mindset, Research Led, and Expert Led axis. Buchanan’s article discusses how problems tackled by designers are in the process rather than the product, by breaking the limits of the imagination by what was previously perceived as impossible. Liu, briefly, shows and describes the existing models of design thinking and formulates a new model which combines the existing models.

These readings really made me reflect the depth and power of design. Through design thinking, we are able to bring what was once in the imagination to something that exists in reality — the wicked problems of design thinking as Buchanan discusses. We are able to develop ways of interacting with the world and changing the way we navigate through our lives in ways we imagined we would be. I really enjoyed Buchanan’s observation on how people tend to think about technology about the product rather than its form that it traps rather than liberates, but stating how there was a period where technology operated within liberal arts and “[possessing] that technology or discipline of thinking was to possess the liberal art, to be human, and to be free in seeking one’s place in the world.” It made me reflect over the technology and design of everyday objects have opened up new avenues of experiences individuals of the past would have never imagined or could have experienced . It liberates my abilities to experience. I also found it quite meta how Liu and Sanders articles show visualizations of design methods and the design process. In a sense, the diagrams they have created are a form of design and has shaped the way I perceive an idea and what it interprets. The idea that the character of designing exists in a world of possibility fascinates me (and is incredible!) because we are given the ability to step into the unknown and expand the way we experience life. Not only the way I interact with my life has been changed, but the possibilities of how I do are as well in my internal and external experiences.