Abstracted Artefacts
We recently held one of our regular lunchtime chats, where we ‘chew the fat’ over whatever occupies our minds….
One new product that prompted some discussion was the B&O Moments control unit. The artefact / device itself is interesting for its use of wood, both as a material, and as a control surface. B&O have continually sought to break category norms using advanced technology – the BeoSound 2300 system used proximity sensors to unveil itself as you approached, it did nothing but make me drool, make we want one….
So, is the use of wood in the same vein as previous products, where technology is used to create a sense of theatre ?
Our debate seemed to suggest a more encompassing idea - that the old rules, the ‘category norms’ have been eroded. Perhaps even more challenging is the idea of detaching product form from function.
Dieter Rams design philosophy has inspired some of our most successful designers & their output - there is a serenity & beauty to certain electric razors, smartphones & computers inspired by such principles. The way an iPhones’ form ‘silences’ itself to allow you to consume content is still one of its most compelling experiences. It is honest, and to a certain extent silent, in a sea of noise and clamour, despite its seemingly endless use cases & functionality. Its reason to exist is to provide content, and its form was created to enable that to occur in the best possible manner.
Yet when we see other new devices and artefacts launched, they all too often seem to be trying to present themselves in ways that don’t explain their purpose. Producing what could be called abstracted artefacts – objects where form, materials & finishes do not suggest function.
Maybe this is a reflection of our advanced markets, where such literal interpretations are seen as passé, and (ironically) simplistic. We, as users and consumers, are using products to express our personalities and aspirations.
We can see this approach in the work of Phillippe Starck & others, where everyday objects are created with a wider perspective on functionality… Perhaps most famously the Allessi Juicy Salif, that Starck is rumoured to have said:
"It's not meant to squeeze lemons, it is meant to start conversations."
A juicer meant to start conversations… A USB ‘stick’ that is a TV antenna, a bracelet that’s counts our steps, or a wooden ‘stereo’ control panel with no physical connection to physical media.
To misquote Madonna, we are living in a de-materialised world. Our media & content exists everywhere without physical form. The concept of what is ‘ours’ has melted away, we simply consume it – we don’t own it, store it or recycle it. As a result, the artefacts & devices we use to consume them have morphed into unfamiliar forms.
From a UI perspective, there has been a long and wide ranging discussion on the concept of ‘skeumophism’ – simplistically surmised as the use of analogue / old world icons & images to help us understand dematerialised functionality. The use of a floppy disk icon to save a document, despite such media being outdated many years ago helps us understand that we are performing the same functions despite the new pathways and actions.
Part of the debate centred upon the use of ‘old’ to explain the ‘new’, and how futile that would be in the long term. Why use an outdated concept to explain a new one ? We don’t necessarily need to actively save a document, it is auto saved, and / or ‘in the cloud’. Yet we still feel the need to do so - our behavioural change is slower than the technological change occurring.
Whether it relates to hardware or software, the challenge now is to express & explain new technologies in ways people understand and appreciate. Skeumorphism is also apparent in hardware / product design, with devices presenting themselves using old languages, and we will quickly arrive at the same result of outdated messages unable to express the true value of certain objects & artefacts.
For example, if we look at the emergent IoT, and all that it entails, how do devices & services express their added value ? What is it that makes we want to buy a ‘connected’ object ? For now, we use the word SMART, when in fact it is almost always the exact opposite – they are not smart, because if they were, they would be able to explain themselves to me. My own (and I suspect others) cynicism about this shows this to be true.
What matters to us as customers, users and humans is rarely expressed or represented in such artefacts. Why the disconnection ? We know that creating and developing the incredible technology we all use is extremely challenging, and once launched, the competition is intense.
We have a deep understanding of how atoms, particles and waves behave and interact, and harness this to create flexible screens and all manner of amazing things. What amazes me is that this is not balanced by a deep understanding of us, of people and our emotive, contextual decision making & behaviour – the net result is that we are able to create a touchscreen computer small enough to put on our wrists, but don’t know who would buy it, or why.
Rectifying this imbalance is the key to future success. In its simplest terms, it means defining what someone might want and developing the technical solution to meet that need. Easily said, but HOW ?
It means that in parallel to the experiments & tests undertaken required to develop technology, we perform tests & experiments to assess how people might respond to certain propositions / ideas and products at very early stages in the process. We perform tests to define & optimise the technology development AND to help define a clear and concise proposition that has meaning & value to people.
To me, that’s the power of design, that’s why we exist – in a time a huge technological advancement & change, it is our role to help businesses understand people, and to use that insight to improve their commercial performance, by making lives better and easier.