Commit fd0cacb6 authored by Carla Barquest's avatar Carla Barquest

couple more quotes...

parent 4cd7484f
......@@ -35,4 +35,24 @@ Computers did not feature significantly in the design process for much of this t
The influence that the design team wielded in the company was clearly understood from all sides. The team believed in themselves, their abilities, their methods and their products and Gillette wanted this successful format to continue. The products continued to sell, and the design team continued to hold sway. Or as Lubs puts it: 'we convinced them and they made an effort to understand'. [p236]
The rejection of colour as decoration and an antipathy to what he calls the 'abuse of colour' is something that Rams has always felt strongly about. Colour, in his opinion, 'has to fit the product: Some products, like things you put on a table are colour-capable, but tools and appliances--kitchen appliances--should not be coloured, they should stay in the background ... you have to think very carefully about where colour is important and where it can be dangerous'. This is not to say that he rejected colour _per se_; in fact he took it very seriously as a means of communication: 'using colour as a signal, I find, is often better than colouring the whole product'. When not compelled to do otherwise, the Braun design team's use of colour in products was reduced to highly specific areas such as control switches. Restricting the use of colour to small points on an otherwise neutral object concentrates its effect, which is shifted away from decoration and towards function, especially when each colour is assigned a signal role such as green for 'on / off' switches, red for 'fm' and yellow for 'phono' on hi-fis or yellow for the second hand on clocks and watches.
This colour coding of operating details is a primary example of the self-explanatory nature of Braun products. One of Dieter Rams's principles of good design is that design should make a product easy to understand: 'I have always laid emphasis on the fact that a product can be brought to "speack" through good design. My aim has always been to raise the self-explanatory aspect. I never trusted instruction manuals -- we all know that most people don't read them. The information always came through how the product looked -- with the colour-coding / labelling. Red is demanding, green is more restrained and so on.' [p238-9]
\ No newline at end of file
This colour coding of operating details is a primary example of the self-explanatory nature of Braun products. One of Dieter Rams's principles of good design is that design should make a product easy to understand: 'I have always laid emphasis on the fact that a product can be brought to "speack" through good design. My aim has always been to raise the self-explanatory aspect. I never trusted instruction manuals -- we all know that most people don't read them. The information always came through how the product looked -- with the colour-coding / labelling. Red is demanding, green is more restrained and so on.' [p238-9]
It is important to note that a manufacturing firm where design and the design department form a powerful component--a design-driven company--was, and still is, a highly unusual entity. As such, it was necessary for the design department at Braun, which was effectively led by Rams from 1961 right up until his promotion to the board as member responsible for Corporate Identity Affairs in 1995, to continually justify and maintain its position in the company. This was especially the case after the US company Gillette became the major shareholder in 1967. Therefore the establishment of rational and defendable thinking positions was indispensable for Braun's design department. [p341]
...fifteen questions that a designer should ask of a product or product-to-be in order to produce a well-designed result...
1 The first question is not if one should be designing something but how.
2 Is the product that we are designing really necessary? Are there not already other, similar, tried and tested appliances that people have got used to and are good and functional? Is innovation in this instance really necessary?
3 Will it really enrich people's lives or does it just appeal to their covetousness, possessiveness or ideas of status? Or does it wake desire because it is offering something new?
4 Is it conceived for the short- or long-term, does it just help increase the spped of the cycle of throwaway goods or does it help slow it down?
5 Can it be simply repaired or does it rely on an expensive customer service facility? Can it in fact be repaired at all or is the whole appliance rendered redundant when just one part of it breaks?
6 Does it exhibit fashionable and therefore aesthetically short=lived design elements?
7 Does it help people or incapacitate them? Does it make them more free or more dependent?
8 Is it so accomplished and perfect that it perhaps incapacitates or humiliates you?
9 Which previous human activity does it replace and can that really be called progress?
10 What possibilities for change, what scope deos the product offer people?
11 Can the product be used in other, perhaps playful, ways?
12 Does the product really offer convenience or does it encourage passivity?
13 What does the expected improvement look like in a broader context?
14 Does it make an action or activity on the whole more complicated or simpler; is it easy to operate or do you have to learn how to use it?
15 Does it arouse curiosity and the imagination? Does it encourage desire to use it, understand it and even to change it?
[p342-3]
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment