design

My write-up on Samsung’s tactile camera concept made me think a little bit about product design. I’ll state that I know a lot of designers, and that I move in circles that really value design, be it graphic, conceptual or otherwise. So perhaps my standards are higher. However, the ugliness of many products for the blind keeps surprising me. I think I can discern a change that is not not unlike the design revolution in the world of wheelchair design. But by and large it’s still as if a product doesn’t have to look good if the person using it cannot see it. The emphasis still is on the strictly utilitarian. This lovely device is the ezcool notetaker. $119 will buy you a device that will convert handwriting to text. I often lug around my Macbook to take notes, which works, but is sometimes awkward. Now, there are braille and speech enabled notetakers, but these are expensive and designed like a brick. $5500 will buy me a Braillino notetaker which was designed as if it had to compete in a Festival of Communist Design in Eastern Germany in 1968.
I think my question is twofold. First of all, why can’t I have good design? Two: why is a decent second-hand car cheaper? It really boggles the mind and I haven’t found a satisfactory answer to either of these questions. I may be a spoiled design nut, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why I shouldn’t be able to use well designed products that I can buy at an acceptable pricepoint. Why must the product design of such devices be so…erm…institutional? Every once in a while, a bright young thing at IDEO, or indeed, Samsung, decides to graduate on a “product for the blind”. And so we have a heap of vaporware products that have nice designs, but that will never get produced. Somehow, the connection with manufacturers of assistive products is just not there. This may also be because those concept products invariably address a design problem that -for most blind people - doesn’t exist, or is not much of an issue. A case in point is the appearance, every now and then, of a “cane replacement product”. I guess the impetus for the designer is the assumption that most blind people would rather not use a cane. And so the quest is to design a product that will perform the functions of a cane, but without looking like a cane. Or, a product will seek to “upgrade” a cane with electronics, like sonar detection of obstacles and GPS. The reality is that most of these products are vaporware, although there are a few examples of products that have actually gone to market. But these are the exception to the rule. And so Samsung’s Touch Sight will likely remain a concept, as did their accessible cellphone. As will the i-cane, as will anything concerning “pervasive computing“. I know I’m in a niche market. Why then is “niche product design” not adopted as a model for developing assistive technology? I doubt whether basic issues such as these will be resolved in my lifetime. And perhaps I’m asking too much. But really, why can’t the stuff I use look a little nicer, cost a little less?