Investigation: Slow design
From the two projects below, I uncovered the concept of slow design and slow design as a means for meaningful interactions.
Slow games by Ishac Bertran
Unread messages by Matteo Loglio
I noticed an underlying philosophy to these two projects which led me to a research paper titled 'Slow design for meaningful interactions' by Jon Mason, C.A.Baker, Dzimitry Aliakseyeu and Pietr Desmet. Some key takeaways:
The main finding from the case study is that Slow Design principles can be used to create more 'mindful' interactions that stimulate positive user involvement.
When a person becomes attached to an object, they are more likely to handle the object with care, repair it when it breaks, and postpone its replacement for as long as possible
...to encourage design practices to orient towards a social, cultural and environmental sustainability.
The last point there made me connect this to an article I read by Ralph Ammer about the future of interaction design and how it's based in biological systems.
Design in relation towards ourselves: What images and objects can support our ability to be present in the moment and maintain mental clarity in our age of super-abundant information? How can we make ourselves smarter rather than the things around us?
Design in relation towards others, what are the alternatives to selfies and judgmental like-buttons on pretentious golden smartphones? What kind of design fosters resonance between people?
Design in relation towards our living environment: Rules or laws are not enough, we also need a profound life friendly philosophical discourse which manifests itself in our designs
It fulfils an ethical need to work towards a betterment of living.
The need for validation poses a barrier to genuine experience. Can I simulate experiences of communication that do not hinder rich human experience?
Subtlety – Things which don’t demand your attention
Design it for life – Things which we really value are those heirloom objects, the things we expect to spend some money on, and invest in, and maybe pass down to the next generation.
Consider the system – Where does your smart thing fit in? Does it need 10 other products to provide a meaningful experience for someone?
Minimal Loveable Product – Hardware is hard. What makes your product loveable? (Cute is not the answer)
Uncomplicated interaction – We have enough to deal with in our lives, giving us a simple, beautiful experience is vital for a product we’ll come back to.
Consider the humanness – You may have come up with a great concept, and even followed all of the above guidelines, but did you really consider the person using it, and how they feel about it, how they relate to it, how their identity changes with it, and how they relate to others when using it? Is it meaningful to them?
Everyday objects – Does it look like something you’d find on Doctor Who or something you’d find in your grandmother’s room? (Granted some objects from Doctor Who are straight out of someone’s grandmother’s room but they are usually taped to something blinky or squishy, indicating their ‘techness’).
Source: http://meaningfuldevices.vanessacarpenter.com/2018/02/27/the-wisdom-of-others-5-articles-which-address-meaningfulness/
http://studiolab.ide.tudelft.nl/diopd/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Book_of_Inspiration_SlowDesign.pdf