Everyone Deserves Great Design
everyonedeservesgreatdesign.com
everyonedeservesgreatdesign.com
This is a wonderfully provocative piece that has made me think, although I disagree with parts of it. Some random thoughts:
- First check you're not trying to solve a social problem with technology.
- Design can be as much a result of accident or trial and error as careful thought upfront. To paraphrase Edison, good design is 1% following the Four Principles and 99% bloodymindedness.
- Design for the community rather than the individual, be they a single person or the President. 70% of the world's population lives in group culture.
- Products that use components which are valuable as standalone items (such as solar panels) will be stripped of those items quickly if they don't deliver an order of magnitude more value.
Have a look at making your site work without JavaScript support or offer a <noscript> warning why you need JavaScript (and why the page has to be blank without it). Also look at adding fall-backs to your font stacks. If you use Ghostery then Typekit is blocked, which will render all fonts in the default browser font.
As for the content: Coca Cola and a 40$ soccer ball as an example of good design and cheap wheelchairs or prosthetic arms as an example of bad design confuses me. I won't form an opinion on this, as the only thing I could be sure of is that such an opinion would be misinformed, but that was the moment you "lost" me.
I do think this debate is welcome. I would probably be on the side of those that say: intent alone does not make a great product, but the intent is still good. I'd rather see 10 more people try and fail to bring mediocre products to the 3rd world, then to see 10 more sites like this and nothing really happening.
If your vision is so counter to the market, that for it to work it has to change the entrepreneurial mindsets of a majority, then that vision is not too compatible. Is that because the vision is not pragmatic and realistic, or are these entrepreneurs really all building shitty products? It seems like it willingly creates a chicken and egg problem where the rest does not even see one.
This is incomplete. It should be "First check you're not trying to solve a social problem with technology and no understanding of the social problem".
To claim that you can't solve social problems with technology is silly. Examples: - People defecate in the same bodies of water that people drink out of. Modern civil engineering technology has solved this in many contexts. - Occasionally, fires wipe out large swaths of cities. Modern construction technology, combined with fire codes, has solved this in many contexts.
Its true, though one can extend it to the silly version that you can't enable solutions to social problems with technology.
> People defecate in the same bodies of water that people drink out of. Modern civil engineering technology has solved this in many contexts.
Actually, I think social solutions to the social problem here are far older than modern civil engineering technology -- the technical problem is that, even with the social factors addressed, there stop being viable alternatives when you have large numbers of people packed in close quarters without sufficient technical means to separate waste streams from supply streams. Modern civil engineering solves that technical problem, allowing the social solutions to be effective in conditions where they otherwise would not be.
OTOH, technical solutions to, e.g., food production and distribution problems (which the world has many of) don't work when the social infrastructure is not in place to support them (which is why people starve in a world with plenty of food.)
Lots of things that are described as single problems have both technical and social aspects, and addressing one doesn't resolve the other. Resolving the complex problem often requires solving both a social problem and a technical problem.
"Over 700,000 have been distributed in 90 countries - they could have easily and affordably produced a more appropriate and desirable wheelchair."
Not only did you inaccurately describe the product they deliver (which is constantly increasing in quality), your critique minimizes this example of what is actually fantastic design that has helped nearly a million people.
Would you rather those million people live without mobility while waiting for your mythical designer to build the perfect wheelchair?
The other 3 examples seemed pretty convincing, though.
That being said, I don't think Ehsan (author) is arguing for a stagnant system that waits for a perfect wheelchair. He is simply advocating for better feedback processes within nonprofits and humanitarian-focused product development.
The wheelchair is a good thing, even with it's arguably effective design. What could it be, though, if designed with more care and feedback?
Generation 2 of their design: http://www.freewheelchairmission.org/site/c.fgLFIXOJKtF/b.64...
I wish they they had maybe distributed 1000 of version 1 before they went to version 2, not 700,000 of a cut-up plastic chair attached to wheels with bolts. I think in the long run they will do great.
The point is, they got something out there and while it may have just been a "cut-up plastic chair attached with wheels and bolts", it gave mobility to hundreds of thousands of people who would have otherwise not had it. I can't see how anyone would categorize that as useless.
It was only through creating that original wheelchair, then watching them being used in the field and getting feedback that they were able to get the knowledge and funding to continue to serve that community.
I think that the Free Wheelchair Mission has had a fantastic feedback loop with its wheelchair recipients which has allowed them to design and distribute their Gen 2 chairs.
We work with kids that have received the first version of their chairs and giving kids mobility is a huge thing. Not to mention that if/when that plastic chair breaks, we can fix it in house.
The fact that 700,000 people now have mobility is fantastic.
However, other than that I find this very unconvincing. It seems to me like they don't really have any concrete solution or message. They do mention these four points, but I would assume that these are already followed by most nonprofits anyway. They do of course not always succeed (as the examples in the beginning show), but I don't think this is for a lack of awareness.
I also don't really understand what their point is with the "Great Design for Everyone" paragraph. What does the fact that Coke is popular around the world have to do with anything? I would argue that this is much more a question of marketing than product design.
Coke does sell drinks that are dramatically more expensive than, ah, coke.
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/brands/all/
I mean, even the top-end energy and health drinks, while retailing for several times what you'd pay for Coke, are still within the reach of most people, but my point is that they do engage in price discrimination, like most rational profit-maximizing entities.
The difference in price between coke classic and monster, for example, is greater, I think, than the difference between a Honda civic and a accura ILX. The only reason you might think that coke is an "everyone" brand is that you make enough money that the cost of a coke is functionally zero.
The difference between poor and rich is that President can buy also more expensive drinks (say fresh fruit) juice whenever he feels like and poor can not. Plus, both president and poor usually can buy also water which is in most cases both healthier and cheaper then coke. I do not mean it as criticism of coke, it is tasty for most people. However, it does not solve any problem I'm aware of. It is just that company manufacturing it was more successful in marketing wars.
See Thorstein Veblen and the concept of "Veblen Goods".
This isn't always the case, and there are perverse examples as well. E.g., railroad carriage class distinctions in the 19th and early 20th century were often enforced by creating intentionally worse experiences for third-class (least cost) service, to the point that if you could possibly afford to avoid the option, you would pay more to do so. That is: extra effort was made to create a worse experience, because it increase higher-value ticket sales.
And there are goods in which there is an intrinsically superior experience to be had by paying more. In my experience, for most consumer goods, this rarely extends far into the higher pricing realms of a product -- beyond a point, it's pretty much all status signalling. Even worse is when even formerly sufficient low-cost product become contaminated by "high-status" signaling -- with the inevitable effect of reducing what little quality was actually present to start with. Bling and similar ornamentation, the market for bikes, and such.
Competitive marketplaces need not provide high value product.
From an economic perspective I find this very inefficient. The notion of 'universal' design would neglect the fact that there are very specific design requirements based on said discriminations. By designing one 'universal' product for say the rich/poor instead of one product for each, in most cases, you'd end up with a portion of the rich unsatisfied by an inferior product respective to expectations and an unsatisfied poor because its too expensive for them. In fact I think the cases where this does and should hold true (things like 'soda') are a rarity.
A market exists for designing things specifically for a certain demographic, and markets are where capitalism thrives. Why this this one-size-fits-all model better than a call to designers to start exploring neglected markets and making unique products for said markets?
... things like 'soda'
"What's great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it."
This mirrors some of what I've heard about public housing. Designers tend to get more leeway for weird, artsy designs when they don't have the pressure of having to sell it to the people who will be living there. The poor, however, just want a normal place to live. Most want to live life just like everybody else.
I find the site quite disingenuous - it really feels like a First World Problem kinda thing. Yes, the prosthetic arm is lame and a poor design, but compared to having no arm, it's much much better.
OP argues that design should be for everyone, and lays out 4 foundations of good design. He/She missed out the most important one: economics
Take for example the NeoNurture. Prior to the invention of the NeoNurture, expensive, well-designed baby incubators would be given as aid to the poor countries, and after a while they stopped using them because the incubators broke down and no one had the knowledge to fix it. You could argue that the modern design of modern baby incubators are poor designs for the poorer countries.
So the guys created NeoNurture, a baby incubator made of motorcycle parts. The design is GREAT for the poor countries, but arguably not great for say, US or Australia. This invalidates the universality argument.
The whole website just rubs me wrong.
I can't remember clearly, but when I first started working at Dyson I think we got a talk from the chap that worked on this project.
First, I'm surprised that there is no explicit mention of participatory design in the part where you lament the lack of feedback with non-profits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_design
Then again, I'm studying design in Malmö, Sweden, and maybe it's not that well-known outside of Scandinavia, and the movement was targeting design in general, not this specific issue. Still, it seems to apply to the problem, and the point is that there is an established design approach trying to address it.
Also, I can't say I'm too fond of the four examples you give near, with the exception of the Giradora. The price point seems to violate your own principle of constraint. In places where drinking water and lack of electricity are an issue, these solutions are just very expensive stopgaps.
Furthermore, it does not mention the problem that just donating stuff locally can undermine the local development of better solutions. Does sending life straws over to Africa give them the means to build a more sustainable solution? This ties in to that participatory design I mentioned earlier: the design should be with the target audience, and if possible the end product should be produced by the developing nation.
Finally, these two websites would probably be relevant to your interests:
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/
http://www.notechmagazine.com/
... although for some reason they seem to be down at the moment.
Same goes for Chromebooks - they cost the same as a good Windows netbook or Android tablet, while offering less features.
In my experience, people in developing countries want the most for their money, and they're not stupid. In fact, they have to be smarter with their cash in order to have any.
Which is why upgradeable/unlocked and used devices are very popular, along with the maximum-hardware/minimum-support devices (most often clones of existing successful stuff) from China.
The Chromebook is designed with "less is more" in mind. It's a zero-maintenance machine, at a cost of features.
Looking at its financials (through 2010): http://www.ln-4.org/documents/89_Use%20of%20Funds%20v002.pdf the foundation has donated one hand for about every $80 total it receives. I would be quite surprised it is possible to do much better than that for this type of device.
Yes it may be somewhat difficult to take it on and off, but how often do you need to remove a prosthetic hand?
Design is one lens to look at what happens, an interesting lens at that, however, the bigger picture is told all the time with things like Band Aid.
Design is iterative. Nearly all non-profit design will originate from the gifter not the giftee. This is suboptimal, but any solution created via social obligation or charity will require a feedback loop in the support tree first in order to allow for a iteration in the recipient loop.
The ideal competitive for-profit firm exists in what's effectively a two-body world:
Producer <- (goods>) (<payment) -> consumer
Many NGOs operate in what's effectively a three-body world:
Sponsor -> producer -> consumer
Of course, not all for-profit businesses operate in a closed-loop fashion. Two classic instances are military spending and traditional healthcare insurance:
Taxpayer -> Military vendor -> Military Purchasing Officer
Ratepayer -> Healthcare Provider -> Patient
Taxpayer -> Vendor -> Purchasing Officer -> Grunt
That is, the obligation for spending money is separated from the decision to spend, and from the recipient of the proceeds. Loans to third-world dictators are another classic example, though I'm not sure this market is necessarily competitive (other than for the bankers):
Oppressed taxpayers -> (taxes)-> Corrupt Government -> (interest)-> Big Bank
Advertiser -> Publisher -> Subscriber/reader
Advertiser -> Google -> Web User
Of course, apparently for-profit businesses can fall into similar traps. Microsoft rather famously doesn't really sell to end-users, its primary customers are OEMs and corporate purchasing agents, generally a CTO:
OEM -> Microsoft -> End user
CTO -> Microsoft -> Worker
There's model in which the two or three or four body world tends to get reduced to what's effectively a zero-body world: free software development.
Though not all users of free software are developers, a great many developers are users. And often a major perk of the development is the use of the product itself. The result is that you have a relationship where the same person or organization is effectively, sponsor, producer, and consumer. In the case of projects such as Debian or OpenBSD, both of which have a clear and explicit end-user mandate, the result is exceptionally high-quality (defined in terms of the goal) results. ASCII art diagrams start breaking down here, but effectively:
person.sponser <-> person.developer <-> person.user
It's not ideal of course -- with large projects, each individual developer typically only plays a limited role. Hell, I've head there might even be disagreements at times. But in comparison to alternative incentive alignment structures the result is excellent, especially given the capital requirements of the projects.
Yes, a company such as Apple which puts an explicit focus on end-user experience and positions itself to sell directly to the user can come close, though it too can drift from this. But the requirements are vastly higher in terms of capital, and the results aren't all that much superior.