Hasta La Ideas

Delivery company UPS has successfully completed a test with a specially-designed electric truck whose roof slides open to reveal an autonomous octocopter drone. 

The driver loads a package into a cage beneath the drone, the drone grabs the package, then flies it over to its destination.

The drone is no replacement for the driver, but is meant to increase the driver’s efficiency on sprawling rural routes. For instance, imagine if the driver needs to hit three addresses that are miles apart in a triangular formation. The driver reaches point A to make the delivery by hand, and deploys the drone to deliver to point B. The driver then heads for point C, and the drone catches up with the truck on the way and docks itself. The driver has saved themself from having to drive two sides of that triangle.

The drone recharges itself in the dock, has a flying capacity of 30 minutes, can carry a 10-pound package, and tops out around 50 miles per hour. Both the drone and the truck were created by Workhorse, an Ohio-based company that develops both electric delivery trucks and drones.

It looks like in the near future, rural dwellers waiting for packages will be alerted not by the sound of an approaching truck–the thing will be silent, being electric–but by the noise made by whizzing rotors.

Are.na is a collaborative research website that allows designers and artists alike to connect dots and dig into creative interests. This article was originally published on Are.na’s blog.

In January, around the time of the Women’s March on Washington, my pilates studio wrote an Audre Lorde quote on the chalkboard near the door: “Caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.” At first it made me feel a kinship with the studio, because I like the quote and I admire Audre Lorde. But throughout the class my eyes kept wandering over to it as I tried to parse what was making me feel uneasy. I decided the quote was a ploy, a convenient way for the studio to justify a $35 exercise class. Don’t get me wrong—I believe in self care, but luxury fitness is not a radical act.

More and more, companies are capitalizing on post-election liberal guilt—using the current political climate as a means to increase monetary gains. With advertisements or socially-minded products, these companies address complex social issues in a superficial way. But more than being tone-deaf, this strategy is potentially harmful: Instead of encouraging genuine civic engagement, it promises to ‘raise awareness’ through monetary transactions. The narrative shifts from the importance of the cause to how great the company is for being socially conscious (woke). Ultimately, this strategy is damaging because it focuses on the feelings of the individual consumer rather than the collective whole.

Last year, a friend purchased a retro feminist T-shirt from a retailer that promised to donate a portion of the profits to Planned Parenthood. When she got the shirt, she realized it was made in Bangladesh. She began an email exchange with the shop owner about how feminist products made in sweatshops is a lazy form of activism. Namely, it fails to recognize the intersectionality of feminism—that it is more than just supporting Planned Parenthood, an organization that primarily focuses on the reproductive health of women in the U.S. If we care about women’s rights in America, my friend argued, then we should also care about the women and children who work abroad in sweatshops. We should make structural connections to understand parallel issues. In Freedom Is A Constant Struggle, Angela Davis writes, “Whenever you conceptualize social justice struggles, you will always defeat your own purposes if you cannot imagine the people around whom you are struggling as equal partners.” It’s possible that the women who made this T-shirt have read Angela Davis, but perhaps it didn’t occur to them to apply it to commerce.

A similar argument can be made about the rise of feminist clothing companies like Nasty Gal or Thinx. These companies built their brand on the platform of empowering women, yet they do not foster a work environment—with fair parental leave, for example, or equitable pay—that reflects these values. As consumers, we have agency in how we spend our money and who we choose to support. But capitalism is a beast, and relationships complicated by capitalism are exacerbated by globalization. Take Starbucks, for example: the company announced at the beginning of the year that it was committed to hiring 10,000 refugees over the next five years. That’s awesome, except that most of Starbucks’ coffee is not fair trade—meaning their coffee pickers are not being paid minimum wage or overtime. While supporting refugees might be more topical at the moment, Starbucks ultimately has more control over their own labor practices. To symbolize solidarity with one marginalized, vulnerable group while failing to support another—one directly under its charge—suggests that Starbucks’ refugee pledge is little more than a strategic piece of marketing.

On January 28, the New York Taxi Workers Alliance staged an impromptu strike to protest against President Trump’s executive order on immigration. During the strike, Uber tweeted that they were removing surge pricing for rides from JFK. Customers interpreted this move as Uber trying to profit off of the strike, and then the hastag #deleteuber began trending. Not letting an opportunity for publicity pass, Lyft publicly donated $1 million to the ACLU. In retaliation, Uber pledged to provide legal support for threatened drivers and established a $3 million legal defense fund. Within the span of two days, Uber and Lyft had entered into an arms race to publicly “out-good” each other.

There is a long history of companies giving back to society—it can be a symbiotic relationship that raises awareness to both brand and cause. Microsoft, Bank of America, and General Electric all have philanthropic arms that work in community development. There is even a new wave of social entrepreneurism that uses the “buy one, donate one” model as part of their core values—for example, Toms Shoes donates a pair of shoes to a person in need with every purchase. Warby Parker does the same with its eyeglasses.

However since the most recent presidential election, companies have moved away from non-partisan issues, fully embracing divisive politics. They use political outrage to increase profits, exemplifying basic principles of neoliberalism. By commercializing the resistance movement, brands draw attention away from the original cause, thus weakening the message and presenting activism as something that can be purchased.

It is no coincidence that the 2008 Obama campaign was the first to feature graphic design so prominently in its campaign strategy, effectively introducing branding to politics. ? The challenge of Obama’s campaign was to make him more presidential; up until that point, he had limited political exposure to the American public. Obama’s campaign co-opted corporate branding strategy by prominently featuring a slick logo, as well as consistent typography and brand language. The aesthetic was fresh, favoring a friendly, geometric sans serif font (Gotham) rather than the typical serif font that had been popular in political campaigns since the 1980s. This approach appealed to millennials, and prompted grassroot efforts like the Shepard Fairey “Hope” poster.

With the brand strategy, Obama was able to reach millennials and compel them to vote. Ultimately, those millennials were a deciding demographic of the 2008 campaign. Because of this, Obama became the ‘cool’ president, the candidate that knew how to reach the youth.

Using Obama as a model of success, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign took a similar aesthetic approach in developing a logo and custom sans serif font. What the campaign failed to realize was that the same graphic strategy that reached millennials in 2008 would not necessarily be as effective in 2016. In the eight years since the election, the aesthetic of the Obama campaign (the friendly sans serif font, the stylized logo) had been absorbed back into the corporate branding world. If you want to sell stuff to young people, design things that look like the graphics of the Obama campaign (minus the red, white and blue).

Since the 2008 election, numerous brands have been designed or redesigned with logos that build upon the Obama campaign’s typography: Bud Light, Facebook, Glossier, Google, Grubhub, Mastercard, Mcdonald’s, Spotify, Zocdoc, and lastly, Hillary for America. Hillary’s 2016 graphic design reflected the candidate’s values through its meticulous attention to detail. However, what this approach failed to recognize was that using corporate branding in her political campaign only intensified her association with the corporate–incidentally her most consistent critique throughout the election cycle (aside from the emails). What was once fresh and new, is now a brand strategy re-co-opted by the corporate world—the same world that was its genesis. The Obama campaign not only changed the visual approach to politics, it also changed how corporations use and value the millennial aesthetic. Obama borrowed a systematic approach to branding from the corporate world and in turn the corporate world borrowed the friendly, youthful-cool of his campaign from him. By the time Hillary’s second presidential campaign came around, it was played out. Millennials, the progenitors of ‘personal branding,’ were already wise to the scheme.

Hillary’s loss to Trump, and the subsequent absurdity of Trump’s term, has sent parts of the U.S. into a tailspin that brands have been all too eager to capitalize on. During the 2017 Super Bowl, Airbnb ran a 30 second commercial that featured a geometric sans serif font, on top of the faces of people from different minorities. The message was an implied critique of Trump’s travel ban, stating: “We believe no matter who you are, where you’re from, who you love or who you worship, we all belong.”

A year prior, the creative agency HUMAN produced the video “Together” in support of the Bernie Sanders campaign. The visual approach of Airbnb’s Super Bowl video is remarkably similar to the Bernie campaign video—in both, different combinations of people’s faces made a diverse whole. Bernie called his campaign a political revolution, creating an urgency and an authenticity that could not be captured in a single logo. What a shame that the momentum of this revolution has now been flattened into a piece of marketing, paid for by a company valued at $30 billion. Is this the new radical?

*******

Allyn Hughes is a graphic designer based in New York. In 2016, she was a member of the design team on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

We like Christopher Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form for the way he takes a sledgehammer to the fetish over aesthetics and artistic pretension in design. We’re often mystified by the design community’s enthusiasm for uncomfortable chairs and weird-ass light fixtures. If the goal is to apply design principles to achieve social outcomes, aesthetics are only useful in that they help us achieve our purpose.

We love Notes on the Synthesis of Form for Alexander’s rational and systematic approach to identifying the appropriate design opportunities, managing the real world’s bewildering complexity and delivering meaningful results for real people. Published in 1964, the book has plenty of sections that are dry as toast, but the good stuff is so good it’s worth persevering.

What follows is a quick summary of my favorite ideas. Fantastic book, check it out! And if you buy the book through the links in this email, Amazon will send part of the proceeds to DtM! [Notes on the Synthesis of Form]

FORM AND CONTEXT

Alexander describes the fundamental elements of design in terms of form and context. “The form is the solution to the problem; the context defines the problem.” In other words, Form is the design objective—the thing we’re going to change. Context is the ensemble of environmental constraints that will remain the fixed, that we will not change.

Each insight derived from the user and the environment can be thought to exert a kind of pressure on the product form. Alexander gives the example of designing a teapot to demonstrate the importance of choosing the appropriate context. Ordinarily, the teapot is the given form, and everything else around it (counter, stove, faucet) is the context. It is possible, though, to choose a context that leads to very different results. For example, what if the form is “easy-access hot water”? Given that we’re no longer restricted to a container we need to heat on the stovetop, we might abandon the tea kettle in favor of an electric hot water dispenser that sits on the counter, or something exotic like a high-pressure nozzle attachment for the sink.

The key point is that in choosing your context, you can “marry in haste and repent at your leisure.” Alexander argues that we should carefully consider the limitations we’re choosing to “marry”, and whether they’re based on careful deliberation or mere tradition. On the other hand, we need to resist the temptation to “boil the ocean.” Alexander writes about the “impractical imperialism of designers who want to redesign whole cities and whole processes of manufacture when they are asked to design simple objects.

A context-aware architectural design that uses passive heating, cooling and lighting. Compare to the standard McMansion that assumes residents will manage heating and cooling with energy-sucking HVAC systems, and illumination with electric lamps.

Alexander is critical of designers who put the burden of adaptation on users, giving an example from architecture:

Since everything in the human environment can nowadays be modified by suitable purchases at the five and ten, very little actually has to be taken care of in the house’s basic organization. Instead of orienting the house carefully for the sun and wind, the builder conceives its organization without concern for orientation, and light, heat and ventilation are taken care of by fans, lamps and other kinds of peripheral devices. (p.29)

American architects of McMansions from Hell can assume that future residents have access to IKEA. When designing for social impact, we have to consider very carefully the total cost of outcome. A rural hospital in sub-Saharan Africa can’t exactly run out to the hardware store to buy a missing surge protector, or send their staff off to language training because the designer assumed everyone understood technical English. Once you release your product, what else has to be true about the world in order for it to work?

HIERARCHY OF DESIGN ELEMENTS

Alexander explains that there exists an opportunity to divide forces into subsystems containing relatively independent groups of strongly-related constraints. Within each group you indicate the relationship between requirements–for example, in a “House of Quality“-style a matrix where a plus-sign indicates a complementary relationship, where a minus-sign demonstrates mutual exclusivity. The key is that by thoughtfully separating the product elements, you are free to modify each subgroup almost independently. For example, in Firefly we were able to treat the top light, the bottom light and the bassinet as three nearly separate and independent design elements.

DESIGN PATTERNS

Alexander noticed that some patterns of constraints, or forces, occurred again and again. For example, every house has to provide the inhabitants with a place to sleep and eat. Alexander labeled these commonly-occurring groups of forces as “patterns.” DtM has already developed a few “patterns” related to medical device design for low-resource countries. For example, many existing medical technologies fail in low resource settings because of five typical misfits:

Alexander in fact wrote an entire book on hundreds of common patterns in urban planning and architecture around the world. A Pattern Language is another DtM favorite!

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY

Alexander warns about the hazards of “self-consciousness” when considering the key factors influencing a design.

When a number of issues are being taken into account in a design decision, inevitably the ones which can be most clearly expressed carry the greatest weight, and are best reflected in the form. Other factors, important too but less well expressed, are not so well reflected. (p.69)

Defining “purchase price” for a medical device is easy, defining “usability” is hard. In “Black Swan Farming“, Paul Graham explains the hazards for venture capitalists who focus exclusively on metrics like early-stage fundraising success that have no correlation with a company’s long-term prospects.

The philosopher Alfred Korzybski put it another way: “The map is not the territory.” Our model of a thing is not the thing. Just because our business plan says product cost is important doesn’t mean that product cost is the most important factor in the ultimate outcome.

WHAT GREAT DESIGN REVEALS

Alexander makes a key point that explains our experience with Firefly:

A well-designed house not only fits its context well but also illuminates the problem of just what the context is, and thereby clarifies the life which it accommodates. (p.91)

In other words, a great design illuminates the context and can generate a deeper understanding of the problem. A well-designed product’s most important features or greatest value may only become apparent after the fact.

The airfoil wing section which allows airplanes to fly was invented at a time when it had just been “proved” that no machine heavier than air could fly. Its aerodynamic properties were not understood until some time after it had been in use. Indeed the invention and use of the airfoil made substantial contributions to the development of aerodynamic theory, rather than vice versa. (p.91)

With discoveries like the airfoil,

The invention is based on a hunch which actually makes it easier to understand the problem. Like such a hunch, a [product point of view] will often precede the precise knowledge which could prescribe its shape on rational grounds. (p.91)

Alexander says that design can be a process for testing and formalizing a designer’s instincts. He writes about the “recent tendency among designers to think about their designs as hypotheses,” tentative assumptions about the nature of the context.

We expected Firefly to be “hard to use wrong,” and included features that would reduce the harm from users putting blankets over the baby, putting too many patients in one bed and positioning the overhead light incorrectly. It was only after we started testing that we discovered the Firefly outcomes of reducing overall newborn treatment times, reducing the incidence of newborn cross-infection and averting risky and expensive exchange blood transfusions.

ANOTHER TAKE

In his 2010 talk “Designing with Forces,” Ryan Singer from 37 Signals does a fantastic job interpreting Christopher Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form from a UI/UX perspective [Vimeo].

_____________________________________

This “Design Experience that Matters” series is provided courtesy of Timothy Prestero and the team at Design that Matters (DtM). As a nonprofit, DtM collaborates with leading social entrepreneurs and hundreds of volunteers to design new medical technologies for the poor in developing countries. DtM’s Firefly infant phototherapy device is treating thousands of newborns in 21 counties from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. In 2012, DtM was named the winner of the National Design Award.

The Core77 team spends time combing through the news so you don’t have to. Here’s a weekly roundup of our favorite finds from the World Wide Web:

“My signature was a result of a class assignment in Design School. I’d read about Oscilloscope signals. My family name is four letters with the ‘M’ resembling a ray trace on an oscilloscope screen. It was relatively easy to take it from there.” —Syd Mead

90 artists around the world follow the instructions to “Look up, paint what you see“.

Will someone please purchase this van on my behalf?

Trump’s Sharpie sketch of the Empire State Building is being auctioned off for 12 grand.

Eight great tools still made in the USA.

A cool interactive article that demonstrates how exactly slot machines are designed to be addictive.

“The rise of the made-for-Instagram museums.”

Government breaks that can get more electric cars on the road.

“I only started weaving at this large scale in this last nine months. I was really inspired by Azilal rugs that are made in Morocco—each one tells the story of the woman who made it.” —Katherine Entis

“How parks lose their playfulness.”

When you’re on conference call waiting for the person on the other line to finish their spiel…

But that Mewtwo though. Via Are.na.

Hot Tip: Discover more blazin’ hot Internet finds on our Twitter and Instagram pages.

Is Fashion Modern?, a new exhibit at MoMA organized by Senior Curator Paola Antonelli and her all-female team of curators, is as much a celebration of fashion and design as it is an extensive history lesson. Leaving no rock unturned, the show investigates many of the everyday fashion items that make up our wardrobes, taking a historical, cultural, or even political lens to each one. Fashion can often feel innovative, but how far do some of these concepts stem back? How are modern designers reinterpreting these items by incorporating new techniques and technologies to progress the field further? 

Many of these questions are contrasted and explored with examples from present and past, demonstrating how some trends have dramatically shifted while others remain. With a dedicated concentration to both backstory, technical detail and culture, it’s easy to say that Is Fashion Modern? is a worthy visit for artists, designers and history buffs alike.

The entrance of the show is decorated with the different cultural fashion items examined within the exhibition.

“Le Smoking”

“Le Smoking” is a women’s tuxedo designed by Yves Saint Laurent in 1967, worn famously by singer Francoise Hardy. It was one of the first suits for women considered as evening couture and was disregarded by many at the time it was designed.

Little Black Dresses

“Is Fashion Modern?” featured a physical timeline of ‘little black dresses’, tracking its evolution from the early 20st century to today. According to MoMA, the concept of the little black dress originated in 1926 when Vogue featured a sketch of a crepe-de-chine dress by Coco Chanel with the caption “The Chanel ‘Ford’—the frock that all the world will wear,” a reference to Ford’s quote about his Model T Car (“Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants, so long as it is black”).

The dress on the left, designed in 2013 by Jessica Rosenkrantz and Jesse Louis-Rosenberg of Nervous System, is completely 3D printed out of laser-sintered nylon.

“Little Black (Death)”

The end of the little black dress timeline is this “Little Black (Death) Dress” designed by Pia Interlandi. The dress, created for the grave, uses a fabric that is responsive to body heat that is meant to highlight the hands of grieving loved ones with a surreal glow.

Undergarments

Two wonders of the twentieth century: briefs and the Wonderbra. The brief was invented in 1935 was one of the first of its kind to feature a Y-front opening, making it “hygienic and modern”. Decades later, Calvin Klein would make his name synonymous with the everyday item with his Times Square ad campaign of Olympian pole-vaulter Tom Hintnaus wearing his “Calvins”.

Margiela tabi Boot

Maison Martin Margiela’s now famous tabi boot was on display, a piece of footwear inspired by the classic split-toe Japanese tabi sock. He apparently “wanted to create an ‘invisible’ shoe, the illusion of a bare foot walking on a high, chunky heel”.

View the full gallery here