Why Things Break

In the book "Why Things Break -- understanding the world by the way it comes apart", the author Mark E. Eberhart tells the story about how he became obsessed with the search for why things break. He is a professor of chemistry and geochemistry with a strong interest in material sciences. Eberhart makes the difference between the questions "when things break" and "why things break". We have always known when things break, at least more or less. People have figured out how much a rock or a copper sword can take. We can measure this by trying over and over again with different weights or forces. But this does not tell us "why" they break.

The book gives many interesting examples of the history of materials and how humans have learnt to use these materials, such as stone and later on bronze and iron. I like the way he describes the intimate relation between humans and their materials. It is clear from his way of telling history that knowledge about the material have in so many case been at the core of a society.

For me this leads to the issue of our contemporary material -- the digital material. What do we about it? When does it break? Are we enough close and intimate with the material to really get an authentic understanding of its qualities and character. I am not sure we are. At least not at a general level that it can inform our way of choosing our future.

To some extent, Eberhart's question can be related to the famous statement of the philosopher Virilio, that every technology carries its own disaster. Virilio also states that we do understand the disaster of most technologies (airplanes fall down, cars crashes, etc), but what is the disaster of digital technology? Maybe the most dangerous technologies are those where the disaster is not visible! So, maybe Eberhart's ambition of finding out core qualities of materials is precisely what we have to do when it comes to digital technology!

Expanding the Design Space

To continue a theme on this blog -- a really good example of the importance of material in design is to be found in the field of cameras. In an article on CNET this is shown clearly. The article is about how our understanding of what a camera is and how it looks and how it is used, is challenged. And the cause is of course that new cameras use digital material as carrier of content. The article mention several examples of how the change of material transform a whole industry.

For instance, when a camera offer wireless networking, the notion of a camera changes. Maybe it is not a tool for capturing a place in time, instead maybe it is a tool that connects two places in real time -- whatever that means.

So, the camera article shows that the change of material really expands the space of possible designs. We are not witnessing any kind of stabilizing of products or services in the field of digital technology, instead we are only in the very beginning and the design space is still growing rapidly. This is, of course, a huge challenge for designers (in all design disciplines) since it is difficult to develop a (field specific) repertoire of design experiences and competence that over time can create a stable foundation for future design tasks. But, this is the way it will be for a long time.

60 second TV series episodes

The TV networks are struggling to find ways to adapt to the new digital reality. One of the newest initiatives by CBS is to launch a TV-series with 60 second episodes! The idea is that short episodes fits the new distribution channels like iPods and cell phones. This is of course an attempt to experiment with the digital material. The networks understand that when their content transforms into being carried by digital material, it is not only a change of some underlying technology. It is a fundamental change. It is a new material that changes everything, in this case even how the content is created and formatted. It also changes how the content is written and directed. It even changes the basic rules and principles in dramaturgy and story telling.

The transformation to digital material will not only change the way people interact with the content, but also the way they appreciate and distinguish good quality from bad. This will of course have impact on the way content will be presented in the traditional technological setting, such as the TV at home in the living room.

The ongoing transformation to digital material is maybe the most important societal change today. It happens everywhere, in all aspects of our reality, with consequences we can not grasp or understand.

The Nature & Aesthetics of Design

In 1978 the book "The Nature & Aesthetics of Design" by David Pye was published. I think I read it for the first time around 1983. I remember that I was completely overwhelmed by the book. It presented an understanding of design that deeply resonated with my own ideas, but stated so much better, and in a way that I had not read anywhere. Today, I read the book again, probably more than 20 years since the last time. And again, I was charmed and intrigued by the book. So many things I have written about on design in the last 20 years can be found in this book!

Pye, who was a Professor of Furniture Design, was also an architect and an industrial designer, and a famous wood craftsman. He died in 1993.

In the book Pye discusses what design is all about, its relation to art and science, the nature of aesthetics, etc. It such a rich book. It is short. It is easy to read with a straightforward language. It feels authentic, grounded and real. It is written by someone who deeply understands his field.

Even though it was almost 30 years since the book was written, it is a source of wisdom that is still relevant, even in a field struggling with the design of digital artifacts and the digital material. Read it!

SPIMES

Well, another interesting book that crosses the vast fields of information technology and design. Bruce Sterling's new book "Shaping Things" presents a highly creative and imaginative perspective on the world of design and as he puts it "a book about everything".

Sterling is a science fiction writer and as a reader of Wired magazine you recognize him as a frequent writer of articles and comments on new technology.

Sterling is moving freely in the landscape he is examining and with a extraordinary open mind he creates new concepts and ways of thinking, and even new words -- like "spime".

I really enjoy this book since it touches on big questions, is not afraid of drawing conclusions, and is still within what is built on an underlying realistic foundation of knowledge. I wish we could see much more writings like this from academia.

I want to come back to some of the ideas that is presented in the book later on. The notion of spime is a good one, and might become really valuable!

Simply Google

In one of his latest essays "The truth about Google's so-called simplicity" Don Norman discusses the simplicity of Google, or especially the first page of Google's web site. Norman argues that Google "is deceptive. It hides all the complexity by simply showing one search box on the main page". The main argument from Norman is that all the other search sites offer much more on their first page, but at Google you have to click to a second or third page to get to other functions than the plain and simple web search.

It seems that Norman finds this to be problematic and not "fair". I think that Norman touches upon another issue that for a lot of people is more important than the ease of use of many functions, and that is separation. Norman writes "Why isn't Google a unified application?". I think we can argue the opposite, namely that it is exactly that fact that has made Google so successful. It might be the case that people don't like "unified" products. We know from the field of home electronics that the most successful products are simple and often single function based. Almost all attempts to design multi-purpose products have failed. This can be seen in many other design field as well, like for instance kitchen utensils.

So, maybe Google strategy to be "deceptive" and not to build it first page design on its organizational structure (another argument from Norman) is what people find attractive and useful.

However, as with all designs, people get tired of a design and want variation, and one day we will see someone who designs a new search page in a (probably completely different) way that will attract peoples attention away from Google.

For any committed designer (and design student) a design like Google.com is a perfect object for analysis and critical reflections around quality and design principles, especially to compare and contrast the Google site with other (equally successful) but totally different designs and try to make sense out of the differences. This is probably one of the best learning activities that will prepare a designer for any future challenges.

New Applications

An article in New York Times today presents and discusses what is seen as a new application for collaboration using computers. This application is similar to what has been around in academic settings for experiments for many years and has been tested and studied over and over again for functionality, usability and usefulness. I wonder how many research articles and papers have been written and published about this type of application. At the same time, what has the contribution of this research been? Now, maybe ten, fifteen, years later, some of the functions of these experimental applications can be found in commercial software. Did the academic studies contribute to the development? Should it? (And if, what should the purpose be?)

This opens up for so many questions concerning the purpose and meaning of testing and evaluation of software. I truly believe that the field has to devote time and reflection to these questions. A mature academic field should have a developed understanding of its place in the big picture, and the big picture here is the overall development of technology.