Annie leonard: The story of Cosmetics

During this video it explained how chemicals in many cosmetics are really bad for the human body, and can result in being seriously detrimental to our health. The way I noticed that all these cosmetic companies are getting away with this is because of all the slight loop holes they are finding. They have noticed that there are NO laws against this, the FDA barely inspects their products, not just this but not all the ingredients are required. Along with this they go to say that the level of toxics in these products will not affect the human body, but they ignore the fact that people use numerous chemicals each time. The big kicker was when they decided to make their own committee to monitor their own work.

In what Annie Leonard explains how the main way to solve this problem is by making a list of laws to abide by, WILL fix the problem, although this will fix a problem, it will also result in the problem of price increase. If there were two different products on the shelf, both doing the same thing, except one costs more than the other, people would usually choose the cheaper option, this is the only complication with making the laws. Unfortunately we have all reached a stage where people are reliant on cosmetics.

I feel that more of a push needs to put on the chemists in creating products that do not have any toxics that are bad for your health, if this industry can boom, and then with some marketing strategies along with keeping the price similar to the toxic products, it will eliminate the toxic product. Seeing as these companies always want to stay in the industry, not only will it eliminate their toxic products, but it would encourage them to join the band wagon of creating products that do not affect your health in a bad way.

Personally I do not feel this has much of an effect on my as the cosmetics I use are the bare minimum to maintain a healthy hygiene and nothing more. Because of this I don’t really believe that I am the sort of person to discuss this topic, but from what I understand the best way I could describe it comes down the ingredients and marketing.

Annie leonard: The story of bottled water

This Video did not so much talk about the design ideas but more target the marketing campaigns and the movement they believe people should take. In total it speaks about how tap water is the same if not better quality than bottled water. This then led on to elaborate on the damage bottled water is doing to the environment.

Something that amazed me most was the acknowledgement of when a bottle is thrown in the recycle bin, it is not necessary recycled, I was amazed to see that 80% is put in land fill. Like usual this all has to do with the money, and how the recycling of a bottle is not very cost affective.

The idea that the only way to stop bottled water from being produced and to help the environment is to stop buying bottled water in total. This technically speaking would work, but I can NOT see everybody stop buying bottled water. The reason why I believe this is because drinking bottled water also has to do with convenience, and a social status. Somebody may be thought to be highly respected if they go ahead and buy a bottle of water, as appose to bringing a pre used bottle of water from home. I believe that way to totally stop bottled water is by making it so this bottled water is no longer socially acceptable, after all that is how bottled water started. Originally everybody believed that buying bottled water was stupid whilst it was free. Then the companies made tap water seem bad for you. This same concept can be thrown back at the bottled water companies by showing how tap water is better quality to bottled water, along with that, if the word spreads about what effect bottled water has on the environment, it will then encourage people to no longer have it.

Annie leonard: The story of electronics

I personally Have always had an obsession with electronics, since I was 8 and I was given my first screw driver set I was opening, disassembling, and modifying computers and anything with a circuit, this led to me having a great understanding of the general area of electronics.. Due to this I had a higher interest of this video simply by the title.

This video general went on to explain how Designs of electronics were made to maximize profit, and the result of that is the price that has to be paid to the people working with the chemicals and the environment.

It also then went onto explain how design could be changed so that instead of replacing an entire product, you could just replace a single or a number of small components.  This then resulting in less waste.  But in total it all came back to the designer, how we are now challenging designers to create devices with a longer life.

With this entire video I both agree and disagree in certain aspects. On one side we have the argument that as designers we should create devices that have a longer life cycle, whilst on the other side we have the argument that everything should just be upgraded.

actually believe that electronics should NOT have a longer life cycle, this is solely because I know that currently we are in a world where electronics is booming in every industry, and a major factor to this has to do with their short life cycle, the fact that a design become obsolete so quickly, results in something bigger and better coming out quicker, again resulting in more powerful electronics. Along with this I also feel it will make those companies that create long life cycles run out of business, the reason for this, is whilst one company has a longer life cycle, there will be another company that has a shorter life cycle design, having newer designs on the market more frequently.

ALTHOUGH, seeing as I disagree with the fact that the life cycle of the product should stay how it currently is, I believe the life cycle of the materials used should be altered. Seeing as so much of a design goes to e waste I believe that a design that can be entirely recycled, and made into these newer faster developing electronics will result in both making the company, the customer, and the environment happy.

Why did i want to be an industrial designer?

When I was always questioned what I want to be when I grew up, I never really thought what can I see myself doing for the rest of my life, I never really thought what is a big money maker, I simply thought….what is fun?

Ever since I was young I found a passion in drawing, designing, and building….back from the days where I would be building houses out of Lego, to my more mature days where I rebuild cars. It always lit up my eyes, it always left me excited to have completed something, look back at it and think “I did that”. There were three main factors that contributed to this admiration, and they were; creating something unique, making something from nothing, and fun. When I got to my later high school days I started searching university courses, and then I noticed how much I loved Design and technology at school, It was by far always my favorite subject and would always show up and class with a smile, this led to my choice in industrial design.

Being a designer I realized that it is all about creating or designing something, that is not already designed, this contributed to me wanting to create something unique. The aspect of making something unrealistic, seem a reality always had my wanting to work harder and push more for design. Somebody that truly inspired me in this area was James Dyson, whom which I saw a design exhibition for whilst in high school. Watching designs of his like the ball barrow, to the bag less vacuum cleaner. His vacuum cleaner was always seen as unique, but impractical, some companies even laughed at him, whilst after he went through the effort to design it. His company is now taken control of the vacuum cleaning market.

Making something from nothing was ALWAYS a big hit for me, the general concept of having an idea in your head, and then with some thought, and innovation, that thing in your head could become something real and practical. This led to the limitation of what I considered as design, was the limitation of whatever I can imagine. This added somewhat a large fun factor to it. Knowing that what I create was from my head, and if designing for someone else, it is something that they can enjoy.

The last yet MOST important factor was fun. If you do not enjoy doing what you’re doing, then why do it? Teachers like to teach, so they become a teacher, they enjoy it. The same concept is for me and designing. I will design something, I will have fun during the process, there will always be some hurdles, but in the end, when the product is complete, I have a smile on my face. If design was not a fun thing to do, then the evolution of every product we use in our day to day life will be very limited.

Task 3: Design Confusion

Australian Design award, the JoeyCan

Human Centered Design

David Kelley: human centered Design

David Kelley’s idea of human centered design was a very key point in the design industry. He elaborated on how designs are made solely to suite the human and the human’s needs. This not only relates to the ergonomics behind a design but more giving a design a human feel, or human like behaviors. 

Something that I loved was the demonstration of the Prada store, this store is an industrial designers dream. The innovation behind every aspect of this store was amazing. The way that everything is made to suite and adjust to the human body. One of my favorite aspects was the delayed mirror, this solved and everyday issue and really gave the store a nice human touch.

My FAVOURITE design that David showed was the human centered cubicle. The human touch that was given to these cubicles amazed me. But what amazed me a lot was the humors research that was done to find out what cubicle they want to make. The idea of a flower in a vase the wilts when you leave gives the design a personal touch, not only does it make the design unique and “out there” but it gets the user to like the product on a personal and touching sort of level.

The Spy fish design interested me as it was no so much a new invention, as these scuba devices HAVE been made before, but this just goes to show the innovation of the design might not actually come to if it is new or not, but it may actual come to who it is targeted at. This design was made slim line, with ease of use, and cheaper. This resulting in it not needing to be an expensive research device, but is now something that the average consumer can afford. Giving the average consumer the capability to explore the underwater environment.

David’s talk about Dr Martin fisher is a true inspiration, despite the massive effect this man has had on the Kenya society, but the opportunities it has opened for the country. He has allowed the country to help themselves. His design was not so much oriented towards the product, but it was more orientated to the structure of companies he has made, the companies are the product. Allowing Kenya to give itself the help that it needs.

I feel that human centered design is a great field and it needs to be continued to be explored. It gives all designs its own personality and generally more comforting to the average person.

Emotional design

A couple of days back i watched Don Norman's speech on emotional design

Don Normans talk on emotional design was a real eye opener for me. I wouldn’t so much say it was inspirational to me, but it more opened up a complete different perspective to design. Emphasizing the effects aesthetics have on our emotion. He went on to explain the 3 levels of emotions, visceral, behavioral, and reflective.

To me visceral was the big eye opener, as it allowed me to explore the fact that functionality and innovation isn’t what only makes a design successful exploring the fact that something may not have any actual intended functionality was a real eye opener. But this then made me question, this is not so much product design, but this is more meant to be art. This was the main issue I had with his visceral explanation. Everything he said I did see to be true, but in everyday items we are beginning to turn them into artworks rather than its actual general purpose use.

I found Don Norman’s talk about the behavioral level of emotive design more....realistic, and more relevant to designs, as appose to the other levels. He explains how the behavioral level is more orientated towards the actual functionality of the design; this functionality is where the innovation takes place. Although I do feel that he explained the behavioral in too much depth, but I strongly understand and admire his point about it relating the subconscious, this is shown in all modern and past designs, and simply emphasizes its ease of use. We will know how to use a design simply by what it looks like, or along with the feeling of control we get over a performance vehicle, this is what encourages the individual to purchase it.

The Reflective level of his talk I found very intuitive, it is very true……I wish it wasn’t, but unfortunately it is very true. People will buy products simply to emphasize their image; it just shows how a design is there to suite social standards. People can be stereotyped as a rev head, an environmentalist, a lawyer, a construction worker and so many more categories simply by what car they drive. People know this, and they understand what each product makes them look like, and this results in their decision on what they purchase.

In total I found Don’s talk very intuitive, I had my slight disagreements but in total his idea was correct and factual, and I strongly appreciated the way he made me look at visceral design.