Hasta La Ideas

This funny "face bra", launched by German company Beate Uhse, is the first sleeping mask w..(Read…)

The USB Waterproof Temperature Data Logger lets you get easy to record the temperature anywhere and ..(Read…)

"CHAIR / CHAIR" is a chair that is made up of five components that resemble the letters C,..(Read…)

We’ve seen several graduation projects from Europe lately, so we were glad to receive this project from Matthew Crowley, a product design major at Stanford’s D-School, in the inbox. The “Canary” is the capstone project of Crowley and his two partners, Matt Blum and Laren Meleney.

Canary is a modern carbon monoxide detector created with young families in mind. Using multiple sensor technologies, this friendly device provides a delightful interaction that gives users the piece of mind that their loved ones are safe. Canary also doubles as a nightlight, only turning on when a room becomes dark. This feature is not only useful, but also encourages proper placement of the carbon monoxide detector in hallways outside of bedrooms and inside of bedrooms themselves.

The real innovation, of course, is that it puts the notorious CO detector within arms’ reach, and an outlet is a small price to pay for the safety and convenience of a wall-powered device. To this end, the “Canary” has several additional features beyond the friendly form factor and backlight:

To prevent child tampering, it also has the option of installing securely to a standard wall outlet with a unique twist-to-lock mechanism, and rather than using a noisy “test” button, Canary’s functionality can be silently tested with the wave of a hand. Our goal with Canary was to bring simplicity and comfort to something that so far has only been sold through fear and mandate. Canary takes on a responsibility. It crosses a task off your list; it protects the ones you love. Canary looks after your nest.

While it’s ostensibly less ambitious than, say, the “Nest” learning thermostat, the “Canary” certainly provides a vital service for any household, and like the “Nest,” it marks an innovation in a niche that is sorely lacking. (No word on whether there is a full lineup of avian-inspired household devices in the works.)

Lots more process on Crowley’s project page.

(more…)

Apple recently decided to completely withdraw all current and future products from the globally accepted green electronics registry and rating program EPEAT because the standards involved no longer fit their “design direction.” The message that this sends to the design community is profound. That the decision was made in the name of design is disingenuous and a disservice to all designers and engineers. But was it, in fact, a necessary step for Apple to take in order to keep running as fast as they are, year after year?

EPEAT is one of the most open, stakeholder-driven, equitable and sophisticated multi-variate eco-labels in the world, covering everything from lifecycle, energy, materials, packaging, recycling and social equity issues. It is a model eco-label that has transformed the industry towards cleaner, greener and more sound practices. Its existence benefits a wide-ranging and global value chain touching hundreds of related industries and markets. The standard has helped environmental and social NGOs working to help solve e-waste and promote effective recycling globally, and the innovations in materials and energy efficiency standards that have evolved from the adoption of the standard have had positive consequences on energy use and the flow of toxic chemicals and compounds in the mining, production and recycling phases of the life of electronics globally.

As one of the companies intimately involved in building the EPEAT standard, it’s a remarkable shift for Apple, who have, up until this decision, used their product track record of being rewarded the highest EPEAT Gold ratings as a badge of honor in talking about their environmental commitments. Steve Jobs mentioned the rating by name several times from the podium in product announcements. Apple’s continued commitment to reducing packaging, improving the energy efficiency performance of their products, reducing the impact of toxic materials, support of recycling and recent efforts towards improving social equity and manufacturing standards are all in line with the mission and guidelines of the EPEAT rating system.

On the surface, the decision, combined with a lack of communication about it by Apple, effectively sends a message of disregard for the combined work of dozens of organizations, NGOs and even entire countries who have collaborated for years to build a multi-billion dollar, stakeholder-driven, transparent, sustainable market for green electronics. The specification of EPEAT rated products in purchasing and procurement policies has been adopted by institutions, municipalities and is now recognized and required by many countries for their government purchasing. Can you imagine how pleased EPEAT member companies like Samsung, HP and Dell are now with the idea that the U.S. Government and many others can no longer purchase Apple laptops, computers, and monitors?

Owing to the lack of official announcement by Apple, one theory is that this is a symbolic case of technology outpacing the eco-labelling organization’s ability to keep up with the constantly shifting manifestations of consumer electronics. In a world in which the distance between cinematic, futuristic visions and real-world applications of holographic, touch-based, virtual surfaces and devices is narrowing rapidly, the ability to re-define and update standards that keep pace with these platforms is incredibly challenging. The unrelenting push of Moore’s Law towards higher computing power in more ever more compact, miniature forms exceeds the ability of standards setting organizations to keep pace, and EPEAT—as of this writing—only covers desktops, notebooks and displays. Imaging equipment, including TVs, printers, copiers and scanners are on the near horizon to be included in the standard.

There are equivalents of technology outpacing standards in other sustainability-based design rating systems. The U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED standard has for years been criticized on a number of fronts, including its lack of teeth and ability to evolve quickly. Alternate, innovative and holistic standards like the Living Building Challenge have risen to fill the need for more forward-looking architects and builders. But for all of its glacial pace, LEED has without question transformed the entire building industry globally, and has transformed entire markets, while raising worldwide awareness about sustainability in the built environment. It’s not perfect, but it serves a purpose and moves a very large needle forward through a coalition of the willing.

The EPEAT process is known to be very slow due to its stakeholder driven, peer-reviewed decision-making process. It can take years for new standards and product categories to be included in the program, and for updates to filter their way through the organization’s vetting process and make it into the published standard. The iPad, for instance, is currently not covered by the “PC” standard of EPA’s Energy Star, which is one of the base requirements to participate in the EPEAT rating program. The “Slate” category that the iPad falls in is currently in the process of being approved by Energy Star, and in so doing, would open the iPad up for scrutiny by the EPEAT rating process, which it would have very likely failed on the ease of disassembly requirement, despite being very energy efficient. This could very well have been one of the factors that triggered this decision by Apple, along with the most recent MacBoook Pro which has been found to be exceedingly difficult to disassemble.

There is an implicit conceit that in order to continue to design things on their own terms, Apple needs to run free, unconstrained, to innovate and produce objects of desire and profound beauty and performance. These products define their brand and have re-defined an entire industry, making them the most valuable company in the world. Year after year they pioneer new and often environmentally friendly technologies in their products. But did they have to abandon EPEAT in the name of design?

(more…)