Overall.
We worked very well together, learnt a good range of technical (Illustrator, Solidworks, InDesign) skills from each other, and delivered a very well thought through product.
In the beginning:
It was difficult to set our constraints. "Distill something from your culture" is a pretty broad starting point. We could perhaps have used some help with how to define constraints. It seems the Irish side focussed much more on existing products, and on re-interpreting those in a contemporary manner.
There were moments when we had trouble translating the idea of DIY into a product opportunity. It seemed more like a behavior than a product opportunity. To tackle this it seemed that the best route was to tackle DIY and innovation at a philosophical level. It was then pleasing to see, with research, other NZ designers translating the style at this deeper level. Our mission with this in mind was to come up with a product that carries as much information or knowlwdge as possible. Perhaps we could suggest "function ever follows knowledge."
In the middle:
We narrowed down to lighting and furniture which lend them selves well to sculptural form. We had some brilliant ideas, but many of them were DIY solutions, and not products. We used a lot of visual research to stimulate ideas. This was very effective. (Go B1 library!)
Toward the end:
We felt that we had to push the three D puzzle solutions further than the Dovetail table, and we departed from this concept completely, but could not come up with anything that hit the nail on the head. We eventually decided to stop this process, and go back to what we had, and develop that further as opposed to try and come up with something new.
IRL 4's comments about the dovetail table helped inspire a new direction and a re-exploration of the concept. (Along with Sophie Ho's toy storage seat poster in the B76 reception).
Ultimately this proved to be the right decision.
Using Cad in the design process was time consuming but useful for a good preliminary presentable visual reference, comparing this with the model making was very interesting. It became clear that the model making had a tendency to be more fluid and change the form on the go. Both seemed to have complimentary restrictions. Having both side by side allowed for a great view of the form.
With another month or so extra time, there are definitely more features and interactivity that we could incorporate into the table.
Here are our final two boards.
There were a few details that we did take into account but did not put on these for the sake of visual clarity. This is not to say they have not been considered:
- The top and bottom of stool have opposite chamfers on edges for easy assembly by children. Top slots into bottom.
- The top half is designed as the primary stool, and is 250mm high. The bottom is around 215mm deep - enough to store reasonably sized toys. The table is 500mm high.
- The stools themselves only fit under the table in one orientation, like a big 3D puzzle.
- Whatever you "post" in the outside slot of the stool, you can retrieve for the inside slot - or take the top half off to get at it.
- The central bag is mesh to allow visibility of stored toys/items/siblings...
- Compartment covers on legs have a concave lower edge, which fits onto a convex ridge in the leg. This acts as a natural hinge/locator.
A couple of extra observations see here are
very little of the chairs were actually in use due to the fact that the children could only sit down for a very short time period.
Possibility - More interesting seats rather than ergonomic, maybe stools.
The use of colour and geometric shape is attractive to adults and children.
Possibility - Geometrically fitting pieces
Most of the tables had paint and paper etc. to draw the kids in.
Possibility - Having a place in the table for toys/activities as suggested by IRL4.
The most interesting of the tables was a mosaic that the kids had made them selves.
Possibility - An interactive table which has been customised.
Kids really getting into the large scale modular building contraptions outside.
Possibility - an aspect to the set which the kids assemble.
During this project, there have been a number of email interactions between Damon and myself, which are probably quite significant in terms of the final direction the project has taken. For the record, here are some of those thoughts:
Just had the thought that a large component of DIY is haptic experience, and associated heuristic learning. And that perhaps we should think around products that encourage that.
So something like the rockpool viewer is intersting – encourages observation, haptic interaction, and learning in children.
And perhaps a product geared toward children is intersting because they are the ones likely to be growing up in a world with increased cheap imports etc. So perhaps a puzzle (two or three D) where some of the pieces are missing? Or where certain elements need to be sourced by the child/user.
Just thinking if creativity/DIY comes from need, then how do we develop a product that creates a need? At least for a certain element thereof before it is complete.
Just thoughts.
I guess what we need to decide is whether we want to have subtle visual clues that reference the DIY approach (like trubridge), or something that encourages DIY in the user. I suspect what Muireann picked up (based on our conversation with her on Monday) from the presentation was a leaning toward using the (very) subtle visual clues, not necessarily using DIY style materials to make the product, or encouraging DIY in the user.
Anyhow, chat more tomorrow. Just trying to get thoughts out there.
Thoughts...
Think we should be concentrating primarily on form first, and materiality thereafter. I think that given the playground/children context, the form and the way in which the pieces fit together is very important. What those pieces are made out of is the next step, and should be whatever best facilitates/allows the form we have designed.
I guess my concern with wood is the only reason that toys were made out of wood in NZ/elsewhere is because that’s what people were limited to. There was no capacity to make complex moulded forms. And I don’t think that we need to place the same historical constraint/limitation on ourselves. Yes it should encourage DIY, but we don’t need to place the historical technological constraints on ourselves. Its the year 2008.
After our presentation, a few people mentioned that the Dovetail Table looked like it would work well as children's furniture. In our criteria scoring, it also came out tops.
We are both quite interested in exploring this idea further, as this ties in very well with our original problem statement, i.e. because of the influx of cheap imported items into NZ, the need for DIY is gradually diminishing and there is a need for a product that encourages DIY activity.
Making furniture for children that encourages hands on three dimensional learning definately fits with this. So we're thinking furniture scale three dimensional puzzles, or pieces that can interlock with pieces of dowel, e.g. two chairs interlock to form a table, and so on. So think large scale tetris, building blocks, interlocking elements, rounded and made suitable for children to interact with.
The individual elements should remain simple, so that the kids can come up with a large range of potential combinations.
We visited the Early Childhood Development Centre and Unitec and took some photographs of the furniture currently being used, as well as chatting with the staff to see what sort of heights the existing furniture is, as well as which items the kids enjoy using. Table height is 500mm, and these are used for both standing and seated work.
Items that were popular were those that the kids could physically interact with, i.e. move/drag around, roIl over, take apart and re-assemble etc. This means the components should be reasonably lightweight, and have grips, handles etc. that small hands can get around.
So, what we're trying to achieve is a clever, interlocking 3D set of modular furniture that is both functional and playful.
Two more boards, sorry we are unable to upload at this stage due to technical reasons.
An initial look around th e house to find some junk lead me to spot the BBQ which is about to die in the gas jet department at which stage I will be eagerly awaiting the next inorganic rubbish tip. In fact each time the inorganic comes around it seem every second house has a BBQ to through out. Here is my DIY resourceful solution...
As far as I can tell with the right tweaks our BBQ would form quite a tidy lounge deck chair to roast in the sun.
With the important features of DIY style identified;
Simple
Clean
*minimal materials
evidence of assembly
*customisable
*self assembly
connection beteween maker and object
we have came down to 3 product areas which we decided would have very good potential for further development.
Lighting
possibly a light that can be changed or personalised in some way by the user
Seating
to reflect the overall values of DIY resourcefulness within its form
Seating (or something similar)
that is made by the user from directions or just seeing it, from common materials.
Ombelico is a modulas storage system designed by ALU and Marc Sadler. It's made by recylcled wood + polypropylene and use of belt to tie parts is a great fashion detail.
the seatbelt belt
An urban twist on the classic "d" ring belt, made from automobile seatbelts and 2" steel hardware
http://www.alamodestuff.com/belts.htm
