I have just posted a quick reply over at LinkedIn under Rob Curedale's Poll at his Product Design Group. I wrote that the ID design process itself can be totally reinvented, which is the real power of problem solving. --the abililty to use knowledge and creativity to come up with solutions regardless how the factors of production/circumstance are given.

If we base on the polls that is given at Linkedin at his group, then what I have been believing is correct. Problem solving skills are actually important right across different industries. It's the specific type of problem solving that is crucial and that defines the profession. In this case, the other important skill of the designer is actually styling, making the object desirable yet useful. Hence I was a little surpriced that styling was ranked least because the another prime function of ID is to be able to make anything look attractive and set that as another selling point. What is missing in the choice of the polls is 'ethical responsibility and another is 'character'. We do not want egoistical people who seem to be focusing on designing things that stands out for themselves or the designers only. Maarten Scheffer had stated some of the most important abilities of a designer. Indeed a sharp problem solver sees ahead of others, plans simply, and execute strongly. Which is why I placed a very importance on brain power and the special ability to see a problem in different ways. This is not exactly a skill that can taught. Design is an ability to come up with a strong product differentiation. How can you be radically different, or at least reasonably different when everyone or most people are taught in the same/similar mode ??

Something to think about, isn't it ?

It actually applies to a lot of other professions in the industry too. And really it does make educational establishments think too.

Recently on facebook, someone discussed the faithful topic on ethics and if the good will receive the good and the bad will get their retribution. I thought it was crystal clear, but obviously many people do not have the positive mindset or the patience to see the karma in all things or deeds we humans do. All living beings create design. Regardless of quality and ethics, every design decision will invariably lead to a result. The reason why the good cannot achieve the good may well be a flaw in the thinking process. It may be a trivial small one that one has carelessly neglected. Hence it makes it seems that the good does not receive the good and the bad appears to win it all. Given the right methodlogy, one could achieve one's goals. But if ethics is ignored, in due course, life will treat you what you put in because the natural laws of life is disrupted.

Global warming is one very real example. The lure of materialism has thwarted the way we think. If we could have the guts to change the 'norm' and daringly change the way we consume goods and services, I believe we can at least slow down the effects of global warming drastically.

The very first step is to discard the fallacy that the bad usually gets the upper hand. That would be a giant step forward.

Had an interesting conversation albeit the thread was a little off shot.
Nonetheless worth the time to add in quickly.

short quickie note:

seems like most people, at least the old timers appear to think that virtual 3D and wood are safer working materials. There are quite a number of people already using other 'scraps' to make rough models years ago.

Sometimes the conventional process of making models are just one way of retricting the mind to venture into other design methods. But that is natural.

The computer model making is just a way of communicating it over the internet. Well personally to me it is. It does not give you the actual tactile feel and neither does it really give you the exact spatial experience. Besides prolonged usage of the PC isn't exactly healthy
too.

Thinking about it, ID can be quite health-harzardous itself. : )

Elfinic me,
Karen Fu

---

.....

Am really busy with work all around but if I do get round to dig out the references, there are people who indeed are using different materials / even scrap to work on draft models before using formal materials/3d printing etc for the final.

I too believe in inventing methods to innovate. I do not rigidly believe in that conventional few, especially if the team or the designer is able to adapt and see different perspectives.

Cheers,
Karen Fu


... if you stick to the standard way of thinking.
But I think even in the process that you've stated, if you look into it, that is not exactly 'a tiny fraction' (refering to the conventional method of model making using not a lot of materials). If you are really good at it (visualisations, investigating forms etc), you don't exactly need a lot of mockups. I often see people making far more mock ups than they really need. They don't improvise. Once finished, they just add on to another mockup and so on. It is a waste of materials. When you know how to see and note your investigations, you don't need that much materials.

Research and findings is a must. But I do encourage improvision. And smart improvision doesn't eat up design quality. Its the quality of thinking that makes the cut. You can do a lot of experimentaions of forms and functions, user interactions; and do not utilise lots and lots of foam or 'harmless' jelutongs. Many other materials from so-called scraps can be utilised too.

Probably out of the usual, but I do believe there are others who do the similar. Just that its not that many. They still get their things in -- regardless patented or not.

Karen Fu
ps: its like people who think they buy environmental friendly reusable bags are good for sustainabilty. It does help but the actual way to sustain envirponment is to actually use what you really need to use
and cut off what you don't need. I don't think these bags make a dramatic difference because consumerism to the brim is very real.