In the first podcast, Yen Trinh (accessed October 30,2012) discussed that
most disciplines are very similar in their steps of inspiration, brainstorming
and design. We found this to be true across the disciplines, however, not
without notable differences. Industrial design has been taught specific rules
and tricks to the designing process. With mind maps, design spiral methods, DDRs
(Design Development Records) and fast pace thumbnail sketching and thorough
research on existing products (so we don’t redesign the wheel) our style has a
lot more structure to it. The architects in our group told us that they have
less emphasis on tools and their designing seems to be a more organic process.
While they so the same sorts of things and come out at the end with finished
designs, they seem to do it in a different flow but with similar processes. Although
this seemed a fair enough thing for the architects to say seeing as Alec and I in particular
seemed to be very different in our classified learning styles (Baker College 2004). We discussed that it was possible that our steps of inspiration,
brainstorming and design were more a mixture of our discipline and our
behavioural side rather than purely a ‘design discipline’ trait.
What we did note at the end of our investigation into this however, was
that we were indeed similar but the only major difference between mainly
industrial design and the other three disciplines was SCALE. Architects,
interior designers and landscape designers concern themselves with the whole
broad picture, the large space, the whole structure and how people flow and
live in the space. We as industrial designers look at the whole picture, but on
a much smaller scale and therefore we stress more about things to do with
detail and usability (as a lot of the time they are something able to be touched,
held and interacted with). Everything we are all concerned with is similar,
just on a different scale. This came across very obviously in our street food
cart project when the industrial designers looked at the systems within the
cart and the user experience with the object, while the architects and interior
design looked at the overall structure, roof canopy, spatial awareness around
the cart itself and major form. Later on in D3 (final design stage) the overall
aesthetic of the cart was completely conceptualised with a breakthrough from
Alec. We all brought aesthetic ideas to the table but Alec’s idea was so
clearly architectural but it was exactly what we as industrial designers were
failing to see and realise. So this backs up Yen Trinh’s next point that
different outcomes and different scales of outcomes were expected. The architects
had no problem smashing out large concepts (i.e. concertinaed roof canopy)
while the industrial designers spent ages on the details of these concepts
(i.e. wondering which would be the best way for it to smoothly unfold the
canopy and how the ends would clip onto the frame). This process of working on
different sides of the same parts of the design worked extremely well because
we were all so in sync and aiming towards the same end outcome for the design.
This can all be seen in the planning stage, the actual design charettes that we
attempted and most clearly this can be seen in our different drawing styles:
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN:
ARCHITECTURE:
INTERIOR DESIGN:
No comments:
Post a Comment